“Equity Grading”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/19/12/harvard-edcast-grading-equity

Here's the goal, folks:

"What we've found consistently across schools, whether they be middle schools, or high schools, or schools that serve lots of low income kids, and kids of color, or suburban predominantly white students and high income, is that the percent of A's that teachers give decreases because there's not so much inflation going on around doing all the homework and everything. Interestingly, the decrease in A's occurs most dramatically for white children and higher income children. The A rate of kids of color and low income actually increases a little bit."

FCPS doesn't want White and Asian kids succeeding. We've seen it with TJ, and we'll see it with "equity grading" under Dr. Reid.

She'll tell us it's all about "reimagining the possibilities," but it's mostly about imagining a world where the playing field is leveled by whatever means achieve more "equal outcomes."

You always have the option of private school.

[Anonymous]

Yet another reason relying on grades over tests is unfair for admission to TJ and colleges. Grading is subjective and manipulated in some places and by some teachers and not in other places and by other teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear FCPS families,

We thought our school system was bad. Yours is a joke.

Signed,

LCPS families

+1000

It’s like a race to the bottom, where the goal is to destroy public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear FCPS families,

We thought our school system was bad. Yours is a joke.

Signed,

LCPS families

+1000

It’s like a race to the bottom, where the goal is to destroy public education.

And they really think all these new progressive ideas are helping. They really do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/19/12/harvard-edcast-grading-equity

Here's the goal, folks:

"What we've found consistently across schools, whether they be middle schools, or high schools, or schools that serve lots of low income kids, and kids of color, or suburban predominantly white students and high income, is that the percent of A's that teachers give decreases because there's not so much inflation going on around doing all the homework and everything. Interestingly, the decrease in A's occurs most dramatically for white children and higher income children. The A rate of kids of color and low income actually increases a little bit."

FCPS doesn't want White and Asian kids succeeding. We've seen it with TJ, and we'll see it with "equity grading" under Dr. Reid.

She'll tell us it's all about "reimagining the possibilities," but it's mostly about imagining a world where the playing field is leveled by whatever means achieve more "equal outcomes."

You always have the option of private school.

And we clearly need to pass voucher legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School is not a competition. The sooner people realize this, the better. The goal of public school is to have kids graduate with a basic level of competency in all areas.

Can you tell colleges? Until they agree, it is a competition

Getting into Harvard is a competition. The goal of public school isn't, and never has been, getting into Harvard. 99.999% of kids aren't going to an ivy league caliber school.

Anonymous wrote:Organizational skills are more important than content in school and in real life. Now we've decided to stop teaching and to stop requiring it for our kids. Why? Because some kids aren't good at it so we should not teach or require it from any kids? Why does that make sense?

Organizational skills are being taught at school. Argue that they aren't, but I have had to give a dozen lessons this year alone through "advisory" on how to organize binders, how to maintain a planner or electronic calendar, how to manage your time, how to appropriate email adults, etc. It just doesn't count for a grade, nor should it. The grade I give kids for "calculus" should display the percentage of calculus concepts they've learned, not how good they are at time management.

Anonymous wrote:Do you have kids?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School is not a competition. The sooner people realize this, the better. The goal of public school is to have kids graduate with a basic level of competency in all areas.

Can you tell colleges? Until they agree, it is a competition

Getting into Harvard is a competition. The goal of public school isn't, and never has been, getting into Harvard. 99.999% of kids aren't going to an ivy league caliber school.

What about getting into instate public schools? They all seem to care a lot about GPA and GPA relative to the class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School is not a competition. The sooner people realize this, the better. The goal of public school is to have kids graduate with a basic level of competency in all areas.

Can you tell colleges? Until they agree, it is a competition

Getting into Harvard is a competition. The goal of public school isn't, and never has been, getting into Harvard. 99.999% of kids aren't going to an ivy league caliber school.

What about getting into instate public schools? They all seem to care a lot about GPA and GPA relative to the class

Your kid doesn't deserve UVA, Tech or W&M either. Nova or nothing, if you go to a public high school in FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much about not allowing late work but more about eliminating a grade for homework, classwork and class participation. The idea is that a kid who fails to routinely do that type of work has a low grade for those areas, and even if he aced a test, his grade is still brought way down. By eliminating all of the other non major work grades, and focusing just on the major work grades, the students are graded solely on what they know, not what they are still mastering. That means if a kid gets a B on a quiz but an A on the test, the quiz is thrown out because the test showed mastery.

Obviously, this hurts the students who put the effort in from the beginning because he gets no credit for that and no grade buffer added in to help raise a lower test grade. Other HSs in FCPS already do this. It should be universal throughout FCPS one way or another and I would prefer it gone.

My niece attends a school that uses this. As a former teacher, I hate it. It punishes the kids who are hard workers but maybe not all As all the time.

It is not obvious to me. If you are able, please explain how it hurts those students.

Read the sentence again. It's pretty clear. The students who put effort in get no credit and no buffer for a bad test grade.

Why not? They can also retake tests. As someone said before, it's not a competition, it is about learning. Do colleges look at grades and have to decline students? Yes. But all you should worry about is that you/your child is learning and growing. Do you really think that kid B is going to be competing with Kid A? More likely the ones not putting forth effort are going to be a rung below the high achieving kids that are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/19/12/harvard-edcast-grading-equity

Here's the goal, folks:

"What we've found consistently across schools, whether they be middle schools, or high schools, or schools that serve lots of low income kids, and kids of color, or suburban predominantly white students and high income, is that the percent of A's that teachers give decreases because there's not so much inflation going on around doing all the homework and everything. Interestingly, the decrease in A's occurs most dramatically for white children and higher income children. The A rate of kids of color and low income actually increases a little bit."

FCPS doesn't want White and Asian kids succeeding. We've seen it with TJ, and we'll see it with "equity grading" under Dr. Reid.

She'll tell us it's all about "reimagining the possibilities," but it's mostly about imagining a world where the playing field is leveled by whatever means achieve more "equal outcomes."

You always have the option of private school.

And we clearly need to pass voucher legislation.

No we do not. I don't want to bankroll your personal preferences for education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD is dreading next year bc of this (an LBSS student like Op's kid).

She says it's unfair to her and her peers who actually work hard, study, do homework (AND turn it on time), and give their 100%, but the grades won't reflect that bc it'll be watered down and shifted. All bc the teachers/fcps dont want the slackers and lazy bums and others don't look bad.

How will their grades be watered down and shifted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much about not allowing late work but more about eliminating a grade for homework, classwork and class participation. The idea is that a kid who fails to routinely do that type of work has a low grade for those areas, and even if he aced a test, his grade is still brought way down. By eliminating all of the other non major work grades, and focusing just on the major work grades, the students are graded solely on what they know, not what they are still mastering. That means if a kid gets a B on a quiz but an A on the test, the quiz is thrown out because the test showed mastery.

Obviously, this hurts the students who put the effort in from the beginning because he gets no credit for that and no grade buffer added in to help raise a lower test grade. Other HSs in FCPS already do this. It should be universal throughout FCPS one way or another and I would prefer it gone.

My niece attends a school that uses this. As a former teacher, I hate it. It punishes the kids who are hard workers but maybe not all As all the time.

How does it punish a kid who works hard? They do get to keep their As. Also, news flash A does not equal work hard. I have THE LAZIEST son who makes As in his sleep. He does not work hard at all. I also have a neurodivergent daughter who tries and tries and tries and when she gets a B we cheer. This idea that only hard working kids get A and lazy kids get bad grades is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is dreading next year bc of this (an LBSS student like Op's kid).

She says it's unfair to her and her peers who actually work hard, study, do homework (AND turn it on time), and give their 100%, but the grades won't reflect that bc it'll be watered down and shifted. All bc the teachers/fcps dont want the slackers and lazy bums and others don't look bad.

How will their grades be watered down and shifted?

Because that's how you bring up low grades and close the achievement gap. By watering down classes, shifting grading standards to be more opaque, so that no one can tell which kids are studious and which ones aren't.

Eventually the studious ones will get the message. Then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/19/12/harvard-edcast-grading-equity

Here's the goal, folks:

"What we've found consistently across schools, whether they be middle schools, or high schools, or schools that serve lots of low income kids, and kids of color, or suburban predominantly white students and high income, is that the percent of A's that teachers give decreases because there's not so much inflation going on around doing all the homework and everything. Interestingly, the decrease in A's occurs most dramatically for white children and higher income children. The A rate of kids of color and low income actually increases a little bit."

FCPS doesn't want White and Asian kids succeeding. We've seen it with TJ, and we'll see it with "equity grading" under Dr. Reid.

She'll tell us it's all about "reimagining the possibilities," but it's mostly about imagining a world where the playing field is leveled by whatever means achieve more "equal outcomes."

You sound ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/19/12/harvard-edcast-grading-equity

Here's the goal, folks:

"What we've found consistently across schools, whether they be middle schools, or high schools, or schools that serve lots of low income kids, and kids of color, or suburban predominantly white students and high income, is that the percent of A's that teachers give decreases because there's not so much inflation going on around doing all the homework and everything. Interestingly, the decrease in A's occurs most dramatically for white children and higher income children. The A rate of kids of color and low income actually increases a little bit."

FCPS doesn't want White and Asian kids succeeding. We've seen it with TJ, and we'll see it with "equity grading" under Dr. Reid.

She'll tell us it's all about "reimagining the possibilities," but it's mostly about imagining a world where the playing field is leveled by whatever means achieve more "equal outcomes."

You sound ridiculous.

I disagree - well said PP!