APS Retake Policy change announced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This policy is such a classic case of having a theoretical plan that goes wrong in the real world.

Of course the kids taking advantage will be the panicked A hunters. I agree with what a PP said. In this messed up environment, it is fully accurate that one B will blow your chances at a whole class of colleges. And they know it. These are very motivated kids and there are plenty of them.

The kids pulling Cs and Ds and failing and not getting the material who this policy was meant to capture and help. Are they really more motivated by this policy? Probably not much.

In my view this was all predictable, but hey they figured it out in the real world I guess.

Yes- it was all very foreseeable. But it was a policy created by the admin with teacher input (see above comment). I am shocked that aps made a mid year change that is to the detriment of the students. This will negatively impact the students. I think the lesson that kids are learning here is “adults will leave you high and dry if they get to do less work.” I think there could have been some structural changes that aps could have made that would have reduced teacher workload without changing the policy at the expense of students.

A nearby school district implement a very similar policy a few years ago. It was a complete sh!tshow the first year with a ton of extra work. But teachers worked together in their course content areas. All of the intensified chem teachers made one retake and then they took turns one day a week holding re-takes. So each teacher didn’t have to stay after every week. They only stayed after once or twice a month, and they didn’t have to make their own retakes they worked together. There are so many ways that aps could have made modifications. Of course, aps just listens to the loudest voices. The nearby school district did make changes in the summer for the next year. But no changes were allowed for the students. They had to keep whatever they said on the syllabus. The syllabus is a binding document that really cannot be changed, at least that’s how the nearby school district views it. I wish aps had the same honor and integrity to their students.

I think this is overblown really. As long as all students are treated the same and the change in policy is clearly stated ahead of tests in the 3rd quarter it is what it is. The idea that the syllabus is some holy document that must not be changed or APS lacks integrity is just a lot. You might not like it, but I think it's within bounds.

Kids made decision in August/September based on the policies in front of them. They decided to stay in a challenging class because they knew they could work hard and had a re-take option if needed. They are maintaining a B in class working hard and using the re-take policy. Now they could very easily get a C, because the policy has changed mid year. Like it or not, outside forces as mentioned above don’t really allow for you to get a C in a class and still get into a lot of colleges. You need to get As and very few Bs to get into many selective colleges. I think it’s unfortunate and I think a syllabus lays out the policies of the class at the beginning of the year. It has transparency and clear expectations. A very large school district near us does not allow for any changes to the syllabus that could potentially negatively impact the students mid year. I think that shows integrity and models that for students.

I don't get it though and I have a kid in high school. Figure it out to get the grade you want on the first test. I agree this will take adjustments to how kids might be operating. But as a general plan, doing poorly on the first test and then figuring it out to take the re-take was not a good plan in the first place.

I think “figuring it out” is a bit of a naive strategy. Best practices say that teachers should be giving formative (pre test) assignments to give students feedback so they can realize if they are “figuring it out.” But in many classes, due to class size, HW only graded for completion, teachers over confidence that they know inherently that the students are getting the material, many times the unit test is the first chance to get real feedback that you were misunderstanding a concept. Then you get that feedback, study again and do better. That is truly happening for many students. Previous opportunities to “figure it out” weren’t there. Math lunch labs are not truly operated in reality. The teachers talk about them at back to school night, but when kids show up, teachers are shocked and just tell kids to practice quietly in the back. It’s not a true opportunity. I am happy that your high schooler has figured it out, but all kids are different.

It's the approach to teaching that needs to change - not making policies that require kids to do double the work and take up extra time to re-do and re-take. Fix the TEACHING. Make teachers TEACH.

Will teaching be changed by Tuesday? If not, keep the policy in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This policy is such a classic case of having a theoretical plan that goes wrong in the real world.

Of course the kids taking advantage will be the panicked A hunters. I agree with what a PP said. In this messed up environment, it is fully accurate that one B will blow your chances at a whole class of colleges. And they know it. These are very motivated kids and there are plenty of them.

The kids pulling Cs and Ds and failing and not getting the material who this policy was meant to capture and help. Are they really more motivated by this policy? Probably not much.

In my view this was all predictable, but hey they figured it out in the real world I guess.

Yes- it was all very foreseeable. But it was a policy created by the admin with teacher input (see above comment). I am shocked that aps made a mid year change that is to the detriment of the students. This will negatively impact the students. I think the lesson that kids are learning here is “adults will leave you high and dry if they get to do less work.” I think there could have been some structural changes that aps could have made that would have reduced teacher workload without changing the policy at the expense of students.

A nearby school district implement a very similar policy a few years ago. It was a complete sh!tshow the first year with a ton of extra work. But teachers worked together in their course content areas. All of the intensified chem teachers made one retake and then they took turns one day a week holding re-takes. So each teacher didn’t have to stay after every week. They only stayed after once or twice a month, and they didn’t have to make their own retakes they worked together. There are so many ways that aps could have made modifications. Of course, aps just listens to the loudest voices. The nearby school district did make changes in the summer for the next year. But no changes were allowed for the students. They had to keep whatever they said on the syllabus. The syllabus is a binding document that really cannot be changed, at least that’s how the nearby school district views it. I wish aps had the same honor and integrity to their students.

I think this is overblown really. As long as all students are treated the same and the change in policy is clearly stated ahead of tests in the 3rd quarter it is what it is. The idea that the syllabus is some holy document that must not be changed or APS lacks integrity is just a lot. You might not like it, but I think it's within bounds.

Kids made decision in August/September based on the policies in front of them. They decided to stay in a challenging class because they knew they could work hard and had a re-take option if needed. They are maintaining a B in class working hard and using the re-take policy. Now they could very easily get a C, because the policy has changed mid year. Like it or not, outside forces as mentioned above don’t really allow for you to get a C in a class and still get into a lot of colleges. You need to get As and very few Bs to get into many selective colleges. I think it’s unfortunate and I think a syllabus lays out the policies of the class at the beginning of the year. It has transparency and clear expectations. A very large school district near us does not allow for any changes to the syllabus that could potentially negatively impact the students mid year. I think that shows integrity and models that for students.

Yeah...no.
If they are already maintaining a B, they can still retake tests lower than 80 and get their usual B.
Like it or not, more kids may find themselves going to a "lesser" school or even community college and then transferring to a more "selective" school - which, btw, saves you a ****load of money and they end up with the same degree.

Your math isn’t completely correct here. Grades are a bit more nuanced than you suggest above. There are different categories and percentages. This policy is not guaranteeing everyone a B by any means.

Additionally, getting into any school is a crapshoot. Getting good grades helps kids get into any school. It’s not just the selective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who is panicking about this change. He has only taken two re-takes, but he’s really down about not having the opportunity to excel on a retake. He is outraged. He’s also got some learning differences and the current policy has made it easier for his 504 to just fall into place rather than me having to obsessively enforce it with his teachers. My other kid has completely abused the policy by only doing the test prep if he gets a bad grade and needs to retake the test. This does not go unnoticed by his teachers! This is to say, I’ve seen both the benefits and pitfalls of the current policy and I have mixed feelings about the change. My question: will teachers have the discretion to offer the entire class the opportunity to completely retake a test that the class collectively bombed and, at their discretion, offer the entire class the opportunity to get an A on that retake? Or does the new policy strip them of that discretion?

It’s not built into our 504 because that would have seemed redundant given the school’s retake policy. Also not sure that would ever have been an option as an accommodation. Our 504 instead provides for a lot of accommodations concerning the setting of exams and the time given and also the way in which our student is required to check in with the teacher in the days and weeks leading up to the exam. We’ve been hands-off on these accommodations this year because of the retake policy. This change will require us to be actively involved in making sure his 504 is being followed given the higher stakes if the exam doesn’t go well. That’s just the reality of our situation. I recognize policies need to be made that generally work for everyone and I’m ok with APS making the change, but is not an inconsequential change for us.

[Anonymous]

Reading through the comments

1. The person who was in the committee basically confirmed that the change was because of increased teacher workload at the secondary level. There are ways to help teachers without ending the policy.

2. Also what naive policy makers thought offering after school re-takes to struggling students who got Ds/Fs was going to be the solution. Many students who are really struggling have limited language proficiency. Are they going to have an amazing comprehension epiphany from 3-4:30 pm that they didn’t have during 8-3? Or students who couldn’t study for the test because they have many work and family obligations that prevented them from prioritizing school work. Are those commitments going to melt away on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3-4:30? No. Or students who have learning issues and struggle with some concepts. Are they going to magically improve with little to no remediation? No- real improvement for these students is going to come from more intentional policies than- a cheery “try again!”

3. It was always going to be students who just wanted to get the best grade possible who were going to try to bring their b to an a because they were close to an a and just wanted to get the best grade they could. Why not- that’s what the policy allowed them. I wouldn’t call this chasing As. I would call these kids who are trying their best within a system. And there are kids who don’t try the first time, but trust me, that gets old for the kid. They will make changes to get a better grade the first time or give up on a re-take.

I think aps gave up on this policy too soon. They should have made changes with in admin to help teachers and really addressed student learning for more marginalized groups, while keeping the policy for students who were using it. I think the re-takes would have evened out as the year progressed and students saw the merits and pitfalls themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This policy is such a classic case of having a theoretical plan that goes wrong in the real world.

Of course the kids taking advantage will be the panicked A hunters. I agree with what a PP said. In this messed up environment, it is fully accurate that one B will blow your chances at a whole class of colleges. And they know it. These are very motivated kids and there are plenty of them.

The kids pulling Cs and Ds and failing and not getting the material who this policy was meant to capture and help. Are they really more motivated by this policy? Probably not much.

In my view this was all predictable, but hey they figured it out in the real world I guess.

Yes- it was all very foreseeable. But it was a policy created by the admin with teacher input (see above comment). I am shocked that aps made a mid year change that is to the detriment of the students. This will negatively impact the students. I think the lesson that kids are learning here is “adults will leave you high and dry if they get to do less work.” I think there could have been some structural changes that aps could have made that would have reduced teacher workload without changing the policy at the expense of students.

A nearby school district implement a very similar policy a few years ago. It was a complete sh!tshow the first year with a ton of extra work. But teachers worked together in their course content areas. All of the intensified chem teachers made one retake and then they took turns one day a week holding re-takes. So each teacher didn’t have to stay after every week. They only stayed after once or twice a month, and they didn’t have to make their own retakes they worked together. There are so many ways that aps could have made modifications. Of course, aps just listens to the loudest voices. The nearby school district did make changes in the summer for the next year. But no changes were allowed for the students. They had to keep whatever they said on the syllabus. The syllabus is a binding document that really cannot be changed, at least that’s how the nearby school district views it. I wish aps had the same honor and integrity to their students.

I think this is overblown really. As long as all students are treated the same and the change in policy is clearly stated ahead of tests in the 3rd quarter it is what it is. The idea that the syllabus is some holy document that must not be changed or APS lacks integrity is just a lot. You might not like it, but I think it's within bounds.

Kids made decision in August/September based on the policies in front of them. They decided to stay in a challenging class because they knew they could work hard and had a re-take option if needed. They are maintaining a B in class working hard and using the re-take policy. Now they could very easily get a C, because the policy has changed mid year. Like it or not, outside forces as mentioned above don’t really allow for you to get a C in a class and still get into a lot of colleges. You need to get As and very few Bs to get into many selective colleges. I think it’s unfortunate and I think a syllabus lays out the policies of the class at the beginning of the year. It has transparency and clear expectations. A very large school district near us does not allow for any changes to the syllabus that could potentially negatively impact the students mid year. I think that shows integrity and models that for students.

I don't get it though and I have a kid in high school. Figure it out to get the grade you want on the first test. I agree this will take adjustments to how kids might be operating. But as a general plan, doing poorly on the first test and then figuring it out to take the re-take was not a good plan in the first place.

I think “figuring it out” is a bit of a naive strategy. Best practices say that teachers should be giving formative (pre test) assignments to give students feedback so they can realize if they are “figuring it out.” But in many classes, due to class size, HW only graded for completion, teachers over confidence that they know inherently that the students are getting the material, many times the unit test is the first chance to get real feedback that you were misunderstanding a concept. Then you get that feedback, study again and do better. That is truly happening for many students. Previous opportunities to “figure it out” weren’t there. Math lunch labs are not truly operated in reality. The teachers talk about them at back to school night, but when kids show up, teachers are shocked and just tell kids to practice quietly in the back. It’s not a true opportunity. I am happy that your high schooler has figured it out, but all kids are different.

It's the approach to teaching that needs to change - not making policies that require kids to do double the work and take up extra time to re-do and re-take. Fix the TEACHING. Make teachers TEACH.

Will teaching be changed by Tuesday? If not, keep the policy in place.

Nope. But it'll never change with the policy in place. And evidently, the teaching hasn't even consistently followed the policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This policy is such a classic case of having a theoretical plan that goes wrong in the real world.

Of course the kids taking advantage will be the panicked A hunters. I agree with what a PP said. In this messed up environment, it is fully accurate that one B will blow your chances at a whole class of colleges. And they know it. These are very motivated kids and there are plenty of them.

The kids pulling Cs and Ds and failing and not getting the material who this policy was meant to capture and help. Are they really more motivated by this policy? Probably not much.

In my view this was all predictable, but hey they figured it out in the real world I guess.

Yes- it was all very foreseeable. But it was a policy created by the admin with teacher input (see above comment). I am shocked that aps made a mid year change that is to the detriment of the students. This will negatively impact the students. I think the lesson that kids are learning here is “adults will leave you high and dry if they get to do less work.” I think there could have been some structural changes that aps could have made that would have reduced teacher workload without changing the policy at the expense of students.

A nearby school district implement a very similar policy a few years ago. It was a complete sh!tshow the first year with a ton of extra work. But teachers worked together in their course content areas. All of the intensified chem teachers made one retake and then they took turns one day a week holding re-takes. So each teacher didn’t have to stay after every week. They only stayed after once or twice a month, and they didn’t have to make their own retakes they worked together. There are so many ways that aps could have made modifications. Of course, aps just listens to the loudest voices. The nearby school district did make changes in the summer for the next year. But no changes were allowed for the students. They had to keep whatever they said on the syllabus. The syllabus is a binding document that really cannot be changed, at least that’s how the nearby school district views it. I wish aps had the same honor and integrity to their students.

I think this is overblown really. As long as all students are treated the same and the change in policy is clearly stated ahead of tests in the 3rd quarter it is what it is. The idea that the syllabus is some holy document that must not be changed or APS lacks integrity is just a lot. You might not like it, but I think it's within bounds.

Kids made decision in August/September based on the policies in front of them. They decided to stay in a challenging class because they knew they could work hard and had a re-take option if needed. They are maintaining a B in class working hard and using the re-take policy. Now they could very easily get a C, because the policy has changed mid year. Like it or not, outside forces as mentioned above don’t really allow for you to get a C in a class and still get into a lot of colleges. You need to get As and very few Bs to get into many selective colleges. I think it’s unfortunate and I think a syllabus lays out the policies of the class at the beginning of the year. It has transparency and clear expectations. A very large school district near us does not allow for any changes to the syllabus that could potentially negatively impact the students mid year. I think that shows integrity and models that for students.

Yeah...no.
If they are already maintaining a B, they can still retake tests lower than 80 and get their usual B.
Like it or not, more kids may find themselves going to a "lesser" school or even community college and then transferring to a more "selective" school - which, btw, saves you a ****load of money and they end up with the same degree.

Your math isn’t completely correct here. Grades are a bit more nuanced than you suggest above. There are different categories and percentages. This policy is not guaranteeing everyone a B by any means.

Additionally, getting into any school is a crapshoot. Getting good grades helps kids get into any school. It’s not just the selective schools.

But the kid is already maintaining a B, including all those other nuances. The only thing changing is not repeating a test if they score 80 (B) or above, and not earning more than 80 (B) on a retake. All the other nuances are the same. So, if those other nuances are weighing them down, perhaps they need to focus on those instead of relying on test retakes.

All those other nuances are precisely why I don't think kids should keep re-taking until they get an A when other kids manage the nuances and the test grades the first time around. There are good reasons for distinctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading through the comments

1. The person who was in the committee basically confirmed that the change was because of increased teacher workload at the secondary level. There are ways to help teachers without ending the policy.

2. Also what naive policy makers thought offering after school re-takes to struggling students who got Ds/Fs was going to be the solution. Many students who are really struggling have limited language proficiency. Are they going to have an amazing comprehension epiphany from 3-4:30 pm that they didn’t have during 8-3? Or students who couldn’t study for the test because they have many work and family obligations that prevented them from prioritizing school work. Are those commitments going to melt away on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3-4:30? No. Or students who have learning issues and struggle with some concepts. Are they going to magically improve with little to no remediation? No- real improvement for these students is going to come from more intentional policies than- a cheery “try again!”

3. It was always going to be students who just wanted to get the best grade possible who were going to try to bring their b to an a because they were close to an a and just wanted to get the best grade they could. Why not- that’s what the policy allowed them. I wouldn’t call this chasing As. I would call these kids who are trying their best within a system. And there are kids who don’t try the first time, but trust me, that gets old for the kid. They will make changes to get a better grade the first time or give up on a re-take.

I think aps gave up on this policy too soon. They should have made changes with in admin to help teachers and really addressed student learning for more marginalized groups, while keeping the policy for students who were using it. I think the re-takes would have evened out as the year progressed and students saw the merits and pitfalls themselves.

All ways of saying that it's the instruction that needs to change. Rather than imposing additional policies as attempted "gap measures."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This policy is such a classic case of having a theoretical plan that goes wrong in the real world.

Of course the kids taking advantage will be the panicked A hunters. I agree with what a PP said. In this messed up environment, it is fully accurate that one B will blow your chances at a whole class of colleges. And they know it. These are very motivated kids and there are plenty of them.

The kids pulling Cs and Ds and failing and not getting the material who this policy was meant to capture and help. Are they really more motivated by this policy? Probably not much.

In my view this was all predictable, but hey they figured it out in the real world I guess.

Yes- it was all very foreseeable. But it was a policy created by the admin with teacher input (see above comment). I am shocked that aps made a mid year change that is to the detriment of the students. This will negatively impact the students. I think the lesson that kids are learning here is “adults will leave you high and dry if they get to do less work.” I think there could have been some structural changes that aps could have made that would have reduced teacher workload without changing the policy at the expense of students.

A nearby school district implement a very similar policy a few years ago. It was a complete sh!tshow the first year with a ton of extra work. But teachers worked together in their course content areas. All of the intensified chem teachers made one retake and then they took turns one day a week holding re-takes. So each teacher didn’t have to stay after every week. They only stayed after once or twice a month, and they didn’t have to make their own retakes they worked together. There are so many ways that aps could have made modifications. Of course, aps just listens to the loudest voices. The nearby school district did make changes in the summer for the next year. But no changes were allowed for the students. They had to keep whatever they said on the syllabus. The syllabus is a binding document that really cannot be changed, at least that’s how the nearby school district views it. I wish aps had the same honor and integrity to their students.

How many intensified chemistry teachers do they have? It does sound good and would work well for situations where a bunch of teachers teach the same class, but I know of many situations where there is only one teacher teaching a certain class. One teacher I know teaches three different classes and is the only one teaching them, and he has about 100 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through the comments

1. The person who was in the committee basically confirmed that the change was because of increased teacher workload at the secondary level. There are ways to help teachers without ending the policy.

2. Also what naive policy makers thought offering after school re-takes to struggling students who got Ds/Fs was going to be the solution. Many students who are really struggling have limited language proficiency. Are they going to have an amazing comprehension epiphany from 3-4:30 pm that they didn’t have during 8-3? Or students who couldn’t study for the test because they have many work and family obligations that prevented them from prioritizing school work. Are those commitments going to melt away on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3-4:30? No. Or students who have learning issues and struggle with some concepts. Are they going to magically improve with little to no remediation? No- real improvement for these students is going to come from more intentional policies than- a cheery “try again!”

3. It was always going to be students who just wanted to get the best grade possible who were going to try to bring their b to an a because they were close to an a and just wanted to get the best grade they could. Why not- that’s what the policy allowed them. I wouldn’t call this chasing As. I would call these kids who are trying their best within a system. And there are kids who don’t try the first time, but trust me, that gets old for the kid. They will make changes to get a better grade the first time or give up on a re-take.

I think aps gave up on this policy too soon. They should have made changes with in admin to help teachers and really addressed student learning for more marginalized groups, while keeping the policy for students who were using it. I think the re-takes would have evened out as the year progressed and students saw the merits and pitfalls themselves.

All ways of saying that it's the instruction that needs to change. Rather than imposing additional policies as attempted "gap measures."

Are you basically saying "teachers just need to teach better?" Because right now teachers have so much on their plates (thanks to policies like this one) that make it so teaching well is extremely difficult. Disciplinary issues that admin won't help with, lack of ability grouping, not making kids repeat classes they do poorly on, demands for data collection, a million meetings, parent demands, professional development demands, rising class sizes, substitute shortages, etc. have made it so teachers don't have time to plan for quality teaching and that much of their time is spent trying to get kids to be quiet and stop getting up and walking around the classroom.

Education "experts" are always coming up with brilliant ideas to "serve the whole child" and make the educational experience great for kids, without considering that every additional thing they ask teachers to do is an additional thing they ask teachers to do. They don't give a crap about the needs of teachers.

Sorry to go off on this, I wanted to become a teacher my whole life but I've looked into it a lot and sadly if I wanted to teach, a teacher isn't the career for me because they have so many other demands placed on them.

[Anonymous]

Why are people indicating that kid a could “keep taking the test” until they get an A. The policy allowed for ONE retake of a given test. Not repeated retakes, as some posters here claim.

[Anonymous]

I’m a little angsty about the change, but I just want to chime in and say I think my kid’s high school teachers have been doing a great job this year both in terms of instruction and clearly communicating expectations and guidelines for re-takes. If teachers think it’s too much work to administer the policy, that doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. If we take away the policy, it hopefully either frees up more time to focus on instruction or at least gives enough breathing room for teachers to maintain job satisfaction, which matters if we care at all about retention of talented teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people indicating that kid a could “keep taking the test” until they get an A. The policy allowed for ONE retake of a given test. Not repeated retakes, as some posters here claim.

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good APS bashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through the comments

1. The person who was in the committee basically confirmed that the change was because of increased teacher workload at the secondary level. There are ways to help teachers without ending the policy.

2. Also what naive policy makers thought offering after school re-takes to struggling students who got Ds/Fs was going to be the solution. Many students who are really struggling have limited language proficiency. Are they going to have an amazing comprehension epiphany from 3-4:30 pm that they didn’t have during 8-3? Or students who couldn’t study for the test because they have many work and family obligations that prevented them from prioritizing school work. Are those commitments going to melt away on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3-4:30? No. Or students who have learning issues and struggle with some concepts. Are they going to magically improve with little to no remediation? No- real improvement for these students is going to come from more intentional policies than- a cheery “try again!”

3. It was always going to be students who just wanted to get the best grade possible who were going to try to bring their b to an a because they were close to an a and just wanted to get the best grade they could. Why not- that’s what the policy allowed them. I wouldn’t call this chasing As. I would call these kids who are trying their best within a system. And there are kids who don’t try the first time, but trust me, that gets old for the kid. They will make changes to get a better grade the first time or give up on a re-take.

I think aps gave up on this policy too soon. They should have made changes with in admin to help teachers and really addressed student learning for more marginalized groups, while keeping the policy for students who were using it. I think the re-takes would have evened out as the year progressed and students saw the merits and pitfalls themselves.

All ways of saying that it's the instruction that needs to change. Rather than imposing additional policies as attempted "gap measures."

Are you basically saying "teachers just need to teach better?" Because right now teachers have so much on their plates (thanks to policies like this one) that make it so teaching well is extremely difficult. Disciplinary issues that admin won't help with, lack of ability grouping, not making kids repeat classes they do poorly on, demands for data collection, a million meetings, parent demands, professional development demands, rising class sizes, substitute shortages, etc. have made it so teachers don't have time to plan for quality teaching and that much of their time is spent trying to get kids to be quiet and stop getting up and walking around the classroom.

Education "experts" are always coming up with brilliant ideas to "serve the whole child" and make the educational experience great for kids, without considering that every additional thing they ask teachers to do is an additional thing they ask teachers to do. They don't give a crap about the needs of teachers.

Sorry to go off on this, I wanted to become a teacher my whole life but I've looked into it a lot and sadly if I wanted to teach, a teacher isn't the career for me because they have so many other demands placed on them.

Many teachers do, yes. And "exactly!" regarding the too many policies and things on their plates! That's why I contend the retake policy was not the right answer and I don't have an issue with the change mid-year.

That's part of it. It's the instruction that needs to change and that means the teachers who currently aren't teaching well need to teach better. Many teachers are managing to be excellent teachers despite the obstacles; but many are not and possibly may be people who wouldn't be great even without the impositions. Just because someone graduated and got a job and is in a classroom doesn't mean they're great or effective in their job. I think many teachers need to be re-taught how to teach, how to facilitate learning through the curriculum throughout the quarter/year in ways that minimize the NEED to remediate and administer re-takes.

I'm not a teacher for good reason: I'd suck at it. So I have great respect and admiration for those who are good at it, and for those just willing to do it period. But that doesn't mean they all "should" be doing it. I think we all know that there simply are some bad teachers out there. Just like students, some are "A" teachers, some "B" teachers" and some who just don't cut it no matter how many retakes they get.

"Personalized learning" is a wonderful utopian ideal. It's also absolutely impossible without a 1:5 teacher:student ratio....if then. Public education needs to get back to the basics of education. It cannot substitute for, or entirely compensate for all the social ills and obstacles every student faces. Nor should it. Other organizations and services should take up the slack and allow schools to focus more on actually providing an education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people indicating that kid a could “keep taking the test” until they get an A. The policy allowed for ONE retake of a given test. Not repeated retakes, as some posters here claim.

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good APS bashing.

There were multiple retakes allowed at one point. Or at least that's how it was interpreted/talked about early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people indicating that kid a could “keep taking the test” until they get an A. The policy allowed for ONE retake of a given test. Not repeated retakes, as some posters here claim.

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good APS bashing.

There were multiple retakes allowed at one point. Or at least that's how it was interpreted/talked about early on.

At least that is the rumor you enjoyed pushing.