Anonymous wrote:From what I can glean, the issue with this for many parents and kids isn't REALLY that they are peeved about equity-it is that the extra assignments that used to inflate their grades are now gone.

So are we against "equity" or FOR grade inflation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also find the gaslighting by the administration really frustrating. They are going full-steam ahead with their plan, while dismissing parent concerns. How difficult would it be to share with the parents and teachers the stats on how this has changed GPAs overall. if it hasn’t, I will stop complaining. But I suspect grades have dropped and they are refusing to tell the parents because the goal is to compress the grades at the top and raise the grades at the bottom to artificially improve equity. Everyone loses, but on paper the principal looks great. I also find it hypocritical that they say they care about mental health, but institute a system that increases stress with more tests and harsher grading. The kids who are doing better under this are those who are happy they don’t have to do the homework now. What kind of messed up system are we implementing?

Exactly what equity needs to be improved at Madison?

The GS rating.

It's a stupid rating system that doesn't take into account when kids take classes or how grades compare to the state average. Just the discrepancy from low to high at the school. If you want to compare races against state and national averages, that's fine, but it's silly to compare how the highest kids in the school are somehow impacting the lowest kids in the school by aiming higher.
https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/vienna/541-Madison-High-School/

Ok but still... those are some horrible equity ratings, like basically bottom.
How is it possible that URMs are doing so poorly at this school? Is it because the school is so vastly white and they effectively don't feel like they belong? I know that most schools in good areas have an equity gap but this is like a chasm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also find the gaslighting by the administration really frustrating. They are going full-steam ahead with their plan, while dismissing parent concerns. How difficult would it be to share with the parents and teachers the stats on how this has changed GPAs overall. if it hasn’t, I will stop complaining. But I suspect grades have dropped and they are refusing to tell the parents because the goal is to compress the grades at the top and raise the grades at the bottom to artificially improve equity. Everyone loses, but on paper the principal looks great. I also find it hypocritical that they say they care about mental health, but institute a system that increases stress with more tests and harsher grading. The kids who are doing better under this are those who are happy they don’t have to do the homework now. What kind of messed up system are we implementing?

Exactly what equity needs to be improved at Madison?

The GS rating.

It's a stupid rating system that doesn't take into account when kids take classes or how grades compare to the state average. Just the discrepancy from low to high at the school. If you want to compare races against state and national averages, that's fine, but it's silly to compare how the highest kids in the school are somehow impacting the lowest kids in the school by aiming higher.
https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/vienna/541-Madison-High-School/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also find the gaslighting by the administration really frustrating. They are going full-steam ahead with their plan, while dismissing parent concerns. How difficult would it be to share with the parents and teachers the stats on how this has changed GPAs overall. if it hasn’t, I will stop complaining. But I suspect grades have dropped and they are refusing to tell the parents because the goal is to compress the grades at the top and raise the grades at the bottom to artificially improve equity. Everyone loses, but on paper the principal looks great. I also find it hypocritical that they say they care about mental health, but institute a system that increases stress with more tests and harsher grading. The kids who are doing better under this are those who are happy they don’t have to do the homework now. What kind of messed up system are we implementing?

Exactly what equity needs to be improved at Madison?

The GS rating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also find the gaslighting by the administration really frustrating. They are going full-steam ahead with their plan, while dismissing parent concerns. How difficult would it be to share with the parents and teachers the stats on how this has changed GPAs overall. if it hasn’t, I will stop complaining. But I suspect grades have dropped and they are refusing to tell the parents because the goal is to compress the grades at the top and raise the grades at the bottom to artificially improve equity. Everyone loses, but on paper the principal looks great. I also find it hypocritical that they say they care about mental health, but institute a system that increases stress with more tests and harsher grading. The kids who are doing better under this are those who are happy they don’t have to do the homework now. What kind of messed up system are we implementing?

Exactly what equity needs to be improved at Madison?

Anonymous wrote:This new grading trend is driving us to reconsider home schooling (Virtual Virginia)... something we would never consider otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread so people can be aware of the grading for equity coming to APS. Here's what teachers at Wakefield High School had to say about it last year:

Teachers from Wakefield High School sent a letter to the Arlington County Superintendent that said the proposal is anything but equitable and would impact the neediest of students as they prepare for the future.

Dear Arlington School Board members and Dr. Duran:

As educators with decades of experience in APS, we are extremely concerned with several changes proposed in the new grading and homework policy. We believe that these changes will impact student learning and socio-emotional development and growth in a negative way. The changes, if implemented, will also result in the decline of high expectations and rigor in the classroom across all APS high schools. We agree that homework, summer assignments, summative as well as formative assessments need to be meaningful, engaging, and be clearly communicated/explained to students and their families; however, if proposed changes are implemented, the accountability “piece” of the learning process will exist in theory only.

In addition to learning how to construct an effective argument in writing, solve math equations, or properly conduct science experiments, as students matriculate through high school, they also learn how to develop organizational, time and stress management skills and grow as responsible, civically engaged, and considerate young adults. To achieve these ends, students should be held accountable for completing their work in a timely manner and meeting deadlines that were reasonably established by their teachers. We pride ourselves on providing useful constructive criticism for our students, analyzing and reflecting on major content and skill-based assignments and providing them with exemplary work from their classmates. We do not see how this practice can continue if the “timeliness of the completion” is not considered in the submission and grading process. Of course, practical/pragmatic elements come into play here as well:

1.If deadlines are removed (or, perhaps more accurately, able to be extended throughout the marking period/semester/school year), the potential certainly exists for a nightmare evaluating scenario for teachers, as submissions are delayed to suit students’ needs (and whims). This process will be compounded if, as stipulated in this proposal, such “remediations” can only be catalyzed via a “formal” two-way exchange between teacher and student.

2.More often than not, content and concepts lead to new content and concepts -- in other words, the material we access in one week organically fosters the material we will access the following week. If students are able to manufacture their own sequence of submissions, it seems logical that doing so would hamper “mastery” moving forward.

We agree with the idea that formative assessments must not count as much as summative assessments. However, we completely disagree with the proposal that none of the formative work should be counted towards a student’s achievement/ grade. It is very likely that students who do not complete or do a poor job with formative assessments will not do well on summative assessments either. So, again, that accountability element should remain to encourage students to stay focused and participate in the learning process consistently. Furthermore, students who exhibit reduced motivation to complete/submit formative work seem hardly likely to increase said motivation with the removal of grades; in fact, students often are able to augment less-than-exemplary scores on summative assessments with successful completion of formative work. Anecdotally, the Spring 2020 virtual learning experiment during the pandemic taught most of us that students do not, will not, complete work if it’s not for a grade.

Moreover, students come to school with various levels of motivation, abilities, background knowledge and work ethic. We, as professionals, need to be aware of these differences and work to facilitate learning and academic growth in each and every one of our students. When deadlines are clearly communicated with students, we expect them to honor those deadlines, and, if they are unable to do so, we expect them to communicate that with us in a timely fashion, so that necessary adjustments can be made based on individual circumstances. However, what message do these proposed policies send to students if they do not complete their work in a timely manner and still get 50% for their missing work? What message do these policies send to a student who met deadlines and received a lower grade than a student who ignored the deadline entirely?

How do we reconcile these policy changes with our efforts to prepare students for the challenges of their post-secondary school lives--challenges which certainly involve deadlines as well as successful completion of assigned tasks? In reality, students use very little of the factual information that they acquire in high school in their daily lives. However, the habits of mind (acquiring and synthesizing information) and work habits (timely attendance, work completion, positive participation in group activities) make for successful careers.

Finally, given the emphasis on equity in today’s education systems, we believe that some of the proposed changes will actually have a detrimental impact towards achieving this goal. Families that have means could still provide challenging and engaging academic experiences for their children and will continue to do so, especially if their child(ren) are not experiencing expected rigor in the classroom. More specifically, those families can afford to hire tutors and sign-up their child(ren) to attend enrichment activities and camps in hopes of preparing them for the college application/admission process. Students who come from families which are not as “savvy” or “aware,” will be subject to further disadvantage because they will not be held accountable for not completing their homework assignments and/or formative assessments according to the deadlines set by their teachers: such results are anything but equitable--conversely, they offer our most needy students reduced probability of preparing for and realizing post-secondary opportunities.

If the discussed changes are implemented, instead of holding students to high academic and personal standards, we are providing them with a variety of excuses and/or enabling them to “game the system,” prompting them to expect the least of themselves in terms of effort, results, and responsibility. At Wakefield, in particular, we believe these proposed changes fly directly in the face of the very pillars upon which our Mission Statement sits.

Sincerely,

[Wakefield High School Teachers]

link: https://wjla.com/news/crisis-in-the-classroom...e-homework-penalties

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is with the idea that some kids are eligible for retakes while others are not. I bet if kids with lower D/F grades were stuck with what they received, this system would be scrapped.

As it is, kids who do poorly get a retake and kids that do well enough don’t. This is where the gap closure happens and where fewer As happen. As with any equitable system, it’s not about providing the same tools for all, it’s about giving some kids more… mostly to supplement what someone earlier mentioned, a “parenting problem.”

If this is actually true, they would be in HUGE trouble. I doubt it is true, otherwise they'll have a bunch of state lawsuits to deal with in the current political environment.

If they allow retakes on certain assignments, they have to allow it for everyone. They can't selectively discriminate in terms of who they allow to retest.

Hard to say.

Madison states the following:
Teachers will identify in advance which summative assessments are eligible for a retake. For these assessments, at least one new opportunity to demonstrate mastery shall be provided to any student who scores below 3.4 on a 4.0 scale or 90% on the 100 point scale (less than an A-) and completes corrective action determined by the subject team. Assessments not eligible for a retake will be articulated in a teacher’s course syllabi.

Some posts ITT imply that it’s like that as well, but maybe not as decisive as the statement I included.

A-/90% is fine, that seems reasonable to me. But honestly it's easy to just allow everyone to retake the ones that the teacher selects to protect against possible lawsuits. It would not change outcomes at the top as many of the A- students would not think it's worth their time to retake to change from A- to A. Logistically it's also easy, there's no reason to exclude a few A- and above, as even if they retake and get an A, it's only good for the school as their overall grade is a bit higher.

I don’t have a kid at Madison, but have two at other FCPS schools. Few teachers allow re-takes, but if they do, it’s only for those scoring below 80 and the max new score is 80. This really needs to be standardized across FCPS schools. People claim that UVA only compares a student to those within their school, but then they also say that if a student doesn’t have a 4.4 UVA is not happening. It’s a heck of a lot easier to have a 4.4 if your school allows new re-take grades up to 90% than if your school allows re-take grades 10 percentage points higher.

Our FCPS high school imposed retakes up to 100% this year.
I have C students who memorize the patterns in the test and retake and end up with an A. And they are still C students despite that A in the class, because I have to again and again reexplain concepts to them that we learned earlier in the year and they never fully understood or retained. But they think they're in great shape for the hardest level up from my class because of that A.
I have lots of students who blow off the test, literally saying "I'm not really prepared but I'll just do the retake." And then I have the kids who got an A- but want an A who retake for an extra 3%.