Since the topic of whether to take Algebra I in 7th comes up

[Anonymous]

My DC is taking Geometry in 8th at a different MS. He has an A now and got a B+ in Algebra I H last year. The class/teacher seems easier this year but DC is also a lot better about doing the ungraded HW assignments and I think the real answer is just maturity, being one year older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MS Geometry teacher - there is a lot behind these numbers, though. My students who keep up with their homework and study seriously for their tests generally score in the 90s. Those that don't are generally in the 80s, sometimes lower (this past unit had more 70s than normal and a few that were lower). Also, the units do get progressively harder as they build and require accessing prior theorems/definitions and more complicated proofs.

I don't feel like any of my students were improperly accelerated, none are totally over their heads.

Some of the kids DD knows are definitely in over their heads. The ones with parents that can afford it got them tutors, because results in the 60s or lower is not going to cut it. She said that on the last assessment, the class average for one of her friends' classes was 69 and change. I don't know if that's a reflection of the teacher (I used to teach in college, and low class averages were an indication to me that I had not done my job), or the kids.

I teach college, too, and my class averages are in the low 50s/high 40s. But the average is a statistic that needs to be paired with the standard deviation to be meaningful.
And the standard deviation is about 16-17, which gives a near perfect bell curve: 3sigma kids score in the 90s (I haven't had anyone with a 100). I pass everyone who is above mu-1sigma.
I see plenty of students though who come with a highschool mindset of "if I don't get an 80/90 I have failed." But grading in college is to provide differentiation for future employers,
not test basic standards most should master.

Huh?
Your college's transcripts have percentage scores not letter grades?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MS Geometry teacher - there is a lot behind these numbers, though. My students who keep up with their homework and study seriously for their tests generally score in the 90s. Those that don't are generally in the 80s, sometimes lower (this past unit had more 70s than normal and a few that were lower). Also, the units do get progressively harder as they build and require accessing prior theorems/definitions and more complicated proofs.

I don't feel like any of my students were improperly accelerated, none are totally over their heads.

Some of the kids DD knows are definitely in over their heads. The ones with parents that can afford it got them tutors, because results in the 60s or lower is not going to cut it. She said that on the last assessment, the class average for one of her friends' classes was 69 and change. I don't know if that's a reflection of the teacher (I used to teach in college, and low class averages were an indication to me that I had not done my job), or the kids.

I teach college, too, and my class averages are in the low 50s/high 40s. But the average is a statistic that needs to be paired with the standard deviation to be meaningful.
And the standard deviation is about 16-17, which gives a near perfect bell curve: 3sigma kids score in the 90s (I haven't had anyone with a 100). I pass everyone who is above mu-1sigma.
I see plenty of students though who come with a highschool mindset of "if I don't get an 80/90 I have failed." But grading in college is to provide differentiation for future employers,
not test basic standards most should master.

Huh?
Your college's transcripts have percentage scores not letter grades?

They do have letter grades, but they are not derived from the standard 90/80/70/60 scale. Students who score consistently 2sigma above mu get an A, for instance.
If an employer sees a C+ or lower, they know this student is not in the top 50% of their peer group.

The point is that to assess performance, you want a wide scale with as many ticks on it as possible, and you're aiming for a mean in the middle of the scale. (That's why we're shaking our heads when we read about 4/3/2/1 scales.)