Edmonton teacher suspended for giving zero's

[Daradon]

Re: FFSIE: I appreciate your response and a lot of it makes sense. However I don't get the last part. If you fail your drivers test you can take it again. No biggy. It's not like you will never drive. Actually the same thing with a zero on an assignment. You just get the clue and buckle down for the rest of the course. It actually kinda supports the other side of the argument in how I'm understanding it. Either the metaphor is lacking or I'm missing something here.

Also I think some confusion is over whether we are talking about a 0 on the course, or a 0 on the assignment or test.

If the kid doesn't hand in an assignment, how can you give anything but a 0? Yes you want to properly assess (heh, I do get the language cause my mom is a teacher) but you're grading the work not the understanding. No work, no grade.

It doesn't matter if you are the best or brightest in your field, whether it's roofing or quantum mechanics or acting. You don't finish the roof, or publish the proof, or stay on the shoot, you don't get paid. It's nice that we are focusing on helping the kids learn and their understanding, but we should also be focusing on their work ethic and commitment to a task, no?

[FlamesFanStrandedInEDM]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That said, I hope in 100 years from now we are not living like "Idiocracy".

It's got electrolytes

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanStrandedInEDM

The "No Zero Policy" does not inflate grades....It just doesn't deflate them. If that kid goes all semester and doesn't do a lick of work. They will be taking the course again. Teachers are not handing out free grades like a new candy bar outside of a football game.

First lets look at how this system is supposed to work. The teacher is expected to hound the student for the incomplete assignment until it is done. This might even involve talking to the parents according to the articles I've read. So yes, in theory everyone is being held accountable and grades are not being given out freely.

I just don't think this works as well as hoped for in the real world, especially for teenagers about to enter the real world. Obviously the teacher is going to let some incompletes slide since your not going to hold a student back just because he didn't complete a couple assignments but what is the limit? Does each teacher decide what is an acceptable number of incompletes? This doesn't seem fair at all and in fact could inflate lazy students grades vs the ones that did all of the work since you would be taking a smaller sample size. Why can't you just give the student a zero? He didn't do anything to show he knows the curriculum so why should he get a "pass" on that one assignment?

I completely agree that using zeros as a measure to control your class (ie. student talks during an exam therefore automatically is given 0) is not acceptable as a teacher but I fail to see how this system is productive for young adults. To me it does exactly as the tag implies though, encourages entitlement and laziness. Anyways I'm really thankful for FFSIE's response as this is a subject I really don't understand so its good to hear from the side opposing my opinion.

[FlamesFanStrandedInEDM]

I approach this as a devils advocate. I do support the "No Zero Policy" to a point, but if those assignments aren't finished by the end of the unit. I can't call them zeros....but those "incompletes" will have an effect on their overall grade or if they can move on.

As crazy as this sounds, SOME assessment guru's are pointing in the direction of grading the outcomes as right or wrong. If a kid flunks an assignment earlier in the year, but shows a terrific understanding of that specific topic on the final. The understanding that student showed while writing his final should outweigh the earlier flunk.

If this goes on, can you imagine what that would mean of the whole practice of grading? Forget the No Zero policy....I'd think that there is a bigger problem.

[Daradon]

But school shouldn't be just about understanding. Some kids are smarter than others. I knew how to play chess and read before I even got to grade one. Guess what, I still did my work. If I knew I didn't have to work and could still get grades based on 'understanding' that probably would have been a very bad thing for me.

School, especially up to grade 12, is as much about teaching kids how to learn and work as it is about the actual course material. As I said, you can be the smartest piece of meat on the planet, but if you don't apply yourself, what is there for you? How good will your life be, or at least, how much will you miss and give up?

And it's not about fairness, its about helping kids. Teaching them the right lessons for life.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That said, I hope in 100 years from now we are not living like "Idiocracy".

The greatest irony in human history is the fact that as we gain more and more access to information we do less and less with it.

[Phanuthier]

FWIW, I agree with the FlamesFanEDM... school is about putting students in the best possible situation to achieve post grade 12, not to beat them down if they are down. Now I know if you don't do a lick of work, you shouldn't be entitled to a degree or whatever... but I remember a kid I went to school with got suspended a lot and was told if he got suspended again, he'd get kicked out. He didn't give a crap about getting suspended, but when he got his last suspension that lead to him getting kicked out, he lost his marbles and started crying saying his life was over. Now I know this isn't the same thing, but 0% is essentially telling them to just give up. I don't know what the right solution is, but the motivation should be for students in this situation to be motivate students to get themselves back on track, not kick them down so low they have no hope of getting back up.

[CaramonLS]

The ironic thing is that Cindy, by doing what she is doing on this board is actually making herself look like an even larger idiot than the 'media' made her out to be.

Reading her posts actually reminded me of some entitled child, who can just stamp their feet and blame others, which is really what this story is all about.

Explain your side of the story please or stop posting here.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

stop posting here.

I think she's pretty much done that

[Calgary Highlander]

Are we really buying that this is Cindy? I mean, it took Kendra Wannamker a week or two before she figured out she was the most popular thing on CP. And that was after people sent her creepy friend requests on facebook.

I find it hard to believe that Cindy Smith found an obscure three-page thread (on a Calgary-based hockey forum no less) where she wasn't even close to being the main topic of discussion and decided to sign up and defend herself.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Calgary Highlander

Are we really buying that this is Cindy? I mean, it took Kendra Wannamker a week or two before she figured out she was the most popular thing on CP. And that was after people sent her creepy friend requests on facebook.

I find it hard to believe that Cindy Smith found an obscure three-page thread (on a Calgary-based hockey forum no less) where she wasn't even close to being the main topic of discussion and decided to sign up and defend herself.

This is also one of the first things that pop up if you look up Cindy Smith Edmonton on Google.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

FWIW, I agree with the FlamesFanEDM... school is about putting students in the best possible situation to achieve post grade 12, not to beat them down if they are down. Now I know if you don't do a lick of work, you shouldn't be entitled to a degree or whatever... but I remember a kid I went to school with got suspended a lot and was told if he got suspended again, he'd get kicked out. He didn't give a crap about getting suspended, but when he got his last suspension that lead to him getting kicked out, he lost his marbles and started crying saying his life was over. Now I know this isn't the same thing, but 0% is essentially telling them to just give up. I don't know what the right solution is, but the motivation should be for students in this situation to be motivate students to get themselves back on track, not kick them down so low they have no hope of getting back up.

Man I so totally disagree with you (big surprise) by rewarding them not doing their work to the best of their abilities, your not preparing them for post grade 12 at all, your preparing them for a long road of failure. Especially if they do go on to post secondary.

And 0 isn't telling them to give up, its telling them to get their a$$ in gear and actually put an effort in because they're not getting rewarded for doing nothing.

Its ok to coddle students to a point, but when they hit grade 10, school does become far more serious and they have to start acting like adults to extent and start assuming responsibility for themselves.

I think that in this day and age of lets not make them feel bad, and your lazy but that's ok buddy we've forgotten that once in a while a reality check is the most positive thing that you can give someone.

Honestly I screwed around one year in school, and they call my parents in for a conference, and the teacher gave the whole spiel that could do so much better if I applied myself and that my grades were below my potential, but I was still passing, and my old man looked at me, looked at my mom and looked at the teacher and said, fail em, he'll do the grade again.

And that's what happened, and after that there was never a question of getting assignments done or studying for tests.

There are way too many stories of students being passed right through the school system and coming out totally uneducated and unprepared because someone somewhere thought it was bad to be real with grading and honest with students and their parents.

Like I said before, in high school, not handing in assignments and then being given multiple chances to make it up and not, bong 0. Not showing up for a test, 0.

There's always summer school for them to make up for those grades.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by shermanator

What the hell kind of school has a no zero policy?

ones in the southern part of America

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Man I so totally disagree with you (big surprise) by rewarding them not doing their work to the best of their abilities, your not preparing them for post grade 12 at all, your preparing them for a long road of failure. Especially if they do go on to post secondary.

And 0 isn't telling them to give up, its telling them to get their a$$ in gear and actually put an effort in because they're not getting rewarded for doing nothing.

Its ok to coddle students to a point, but when they hit grade 10, school does become far more serious and they have to start acting like adults to extent and start assuming responsibility for themselves.

I think that in this day and age of lets not make them feel bad, and your lazy but that's ok buddy we've forgotten that once in a while a reality check is the most positive thing that you can give someone.

Honestly I screwed around one year in school, and they call my parents in for a conference, and the teacher gave the whole spiel that could do so much better if I applied myself and that my grades were below my potential, but I was still passing, and my old man looked at me, looked at my mom and looked at the teacher and said, fail em, he'll do the grade again.

And that's what happened, and after that there was never a question of getting assignments done or studying for tests.

There are way too many stories of students being passed right through the school system and coming out totally uneducated and unprepared because someone somewhere thought it was bad to be real with grading and honest with students and their parents.

Like I said before, in high school, not handing in assignments and then being given multiple chances to make it up and not, bong 0. Not showing up for a test, 0.

There's always summer school for them to make up for those grades.

I am somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but not everybody is destined for greatness after high school. Whether somebody is pulling in 0s or 50s or 60s is immaterial. There isn't any need to further humiliate somebody who isn't planning on post-secondary education anyway. If somebody can demonstrate reading and math skills out of high school, they are ready to join the blue collar work force. Anybody who has post-secondary aspirations would be caring a lot more about their marks and studies and wouldn't be satisfied with whatever the minimum mark they could get in class under the no-zero policy. I don't believe students are, for example, flunking math 11 and then being able to take AP Math / Calculus in grade 12 because of this policy.

Anyway, my point is, even though there are no zero marks being handed out, everybody involved knows what is going on and that there is a lack of effort being put forth. Nobody is really getting fooled. But if the student isn't university bound, and knows the basics to get through life, I don't see a reason to hold them back.

Did what your parents do change your life remarkably one way or another? What did having the school fail you ultimately accomplish?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanStrandedInEDM

A Humourous Answer?
"I dont like giving zeros because the kids who would earn zeros I probably dont want to see in my class next semester?"

I sent an answer to someone who sent me a PM directly that was fairly long, and if he sees this, he has my permission to copy paste it (I deleted my outbox cause it was full)

The biggest issue with Zeros is that unfinished work is classified as a behavior problem. Teachers are responsible to mark students alongside what the curriculum expectations are. A Zero does not accurately assess what the student knows. I'm even more against the teachers who hand out zeros as a punishment for behavior "If you talk during the exam, you receive a zero" A Zero should not be used to threaten or replace your classroom management skills. Because the teacher is responsible for assessing the students knowledge of the curriculum. I said this in an earlier post, but the Social Studies curriculum states "Student will understand the causes and effects of globalization" Not that they will understand it by March 12th.

The classroom is a dynamic environment that is constantly changing. Many of you would barely recognize the classrooms today. Just because it was "this way" when you went to school 25 years ago, doesn't mean it has to be that way now. Inclusion policies are changing, assessment is changing, the technology is changing. However, I realize that I'm talking to a crowd of people who think they know how to run a team because they played hockey when they were 10, so I'm not expecting to sway many peoples opinions.

The "No Zero Policy" is not about student entitlement, it's about giving the best assessment of your children's education. What's wrong with a second chance if they didn't get it the first time? How many of you wouldn't be driving if you only got one chance to pass your drivers test when you were 16? It's not about when you understand the content, its IF you understand the content.

The mark should reflect the knowledge demonstrated via an specified objective medium. Is this such a wild notion? Assessment becomes subjective when based on an individual teacher's observations. And then sometimes the result is the teacher's perception of the student's attitude rather than the student's knowledge. Geez, especially when it includes things like "causes and effects of globalization." I could've bullshat my way to a 90% in that course.

Most of your argument seems to actually support zeroes where a teacher has been given no observational or measurable proof that a student understands the material (willfully or otherwise.) I'm fairly certain that zeroes being used as behavioural deterrents would be generally frowned upon by most everyone here (with the possible exception of Captain Crunch who still bemoans the demise of the strap.) However, that's not the argument.

"Inclusion policies are changing, assessment is changing, the technology is changing." This comment is annoying, especially when followed by the condescending "hockey team" analogy. Change is simply that - different than before. You're inferring that these changes are good and only teachers are able to make that determination.

Additionally, banning zeroes in order to preserve self-esteem and avoid hurt feelings is nonsense. Another poster started equating zeroes and suspensions, but this is where you move from knowledge assessment to behavioural issues. A zero is / should be nowhere close to a suspension. If a zero is indicative of the kid doing nothing and demonstrating nothing, than how is it "essentially telling them to just give up"? That has already happened...the zero is the result.

If the No Zero policy actually produces zereos (Exhibit A - Cindy), I consider it a failed policy.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by zuluking

If the No Zero policy actually produces zereos (Exhibit A - Cindy), I consider it a failed policy.

Idiots have made it through high school before for decades and decades before any of this came into place.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Idiots have made it through high school before for decades and decades before any of this came into place.

They didn't get help doing it though.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

FWIW, I agree with the FlamesFanEDM... school is about putting students in the best possible situation to achieve post grade 12, not to beat them down if they are down. Now I know if you don't do a lick of work, you shouldn't be entitled to a degree or whatever... but I remember a kid I went to school with got suspended a lot and was told if he got suspended again, he'd get kicked out. He didn't give a crap about getting suspended, but when he got his last suspension that lead to him getting kicked out, he lost his marbles and started crying saying his life was over. Now I know this isn't the same thing, but 0% is essentially telling them to just give up. I don't know what the right solution is, but the motivation should be for students in this situation to be motivate students to get themselves back on track, not kick them down so low they have no hope of getting back up.

I don't agree with this.

I was kicked out in grade 12, and told if I wanted back in the next year, I had to get a job, and at the start of the next school year had to show up with a letter of reference from my employer. My dad was totally supportive of it as well (in fact, I was later told he pushed the school to make sure I got expelled). I went out, got a job at a gas station for 10 months, worked my ass off, paid rent to my old man, and dealt with the constant ridicule from my friends that drove by every day on their way to school. The school let me back in, and I graduated the following year.

FFWD 20 years, and I'm 2 courses shy of a degree (working on it), run my own business, and live a fairly comfortable life. It may have taken me longer to figure life out than others, but I wouldn't be the same person if I was handled with kid gloves my entire life.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

FWIW, I agree with the FlamesFanEDM... school is about putting students in the best possible situation to achieve post grade 12, not to beat them down if they are down. Now I know if you don't do a lick of work, you shouldn't be entitled to a degree or whatever... but I remember a kid I went to school with got suspended a lot and was told if he got suspended again, he'd get kicked out. He didn't give a crap about getting suspended, but when he got his last suspension that lead to him getting kicked out, he lost his marbles and started crying saying his life was over. Now I know this isn't the same thing, but 0% is essentially telling them to just give up. I don't know what the right solution is, but the motivation should be for students in this situation to be motivate students to get themselves back on track, not kick them down so low they have no hope of getting back up.

The problem with this whole policy is we're talking about something that's really aimed at avoiding demotivation of the crappiest 5 students in every class but yet can have damaging effects to the median student plus or minus one standard deviation. It's true that the top quartile probably will go on to live their lives and achieve what they're going to achieve regardless of these kinds of policies. High achievers are the types that will put in the extra effort in life and this won't change them.

However the middle of the road student is probably you're average person who only really responds to pressure at the margins and usually needs a kick in the pants to do things. In the 'no-zero' scenario you will probably have a whole collection of kids gaming the system and ultimately managing their studies to provide for their optimal combination of a high enough grade to keep their parents off their back and low effort so they can avoid homework or even attandance for some exams. This ultimately robs these student out of the learning benefits that the homework/exams were designed for in the first place and also reinforces a 'minimal effort' work ethic.

If I was a parent of a kid who was a median child and had the resources I would send them to a private school that simply doesn't have this lowest common denominator approach to education. Ultimately this is what the government in Alberta should be worried about more than simply the bottom rung. The less effective the public education system is at teaching the average student the tools needed move into adulthood, the more you're going see an Americanization or Torontoization of education where the public system becomes the defacto system exclusively for the bottom tier of society.

[Phanuthier]

Cowboy : I'm no teacher or parent. I'm just saying I get where they're coming from. I'm about a decade off from said targeted audience, but I know a lot of cases (myself included) where getting a low great acted more as a de-motivator then a motivator. Similar to money being a great de-motivator, but a terrible motivator, marks are the same thing. On the statistical level, the ones you see who will rally from it are on the lower % of the bell curve. What is the goal of your education system, to make sure yourself feel honest or to try and produce a more educated and productive society? Maybe you are the former, but I am the ladder.

CaptainCrunch : I got to say, I love your romantic stories about how you were once a bad ass rebel, but your dad sat your on your lap and goes "Son . . . I believe in you" and you turned into such a great thing. Honestly its awesome. There are a few superhero's like you I guess... but the non-0 topic discussed would not be for superhero's like you; it would be targeted to the lower performers that you don't want to be an anchor.

And, I didn't say that you should reward the lower/lazy performers.... I don't know where you read that in my post, maybe you were distracted by the reminiscing of you sitting on your dad's lap or something. I'm just saying I get the argument of why you don't give a kid a crippling zero.... honestly I don't really have a say in which way the system should go, I don't have the data and all the knowledge to make a informed opinion. I'm just saying whatever system put in should be geared towards maximizing the potential while hopefully still encouraging the top tier to succeed, however that is done.