Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.
This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?
I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.
This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?
I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.
Yes, plus this is the correct approach when we view education through the lens of racial equity.
Grading is unfair and has a disparate impact on URMs. Obviously the solution is to try an other-than-grading approach to education.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.
I don’t think much of teacher education is grounded in reality these days. That’s depressing. And explains how we got the Lucy Caulkins crap spread around the country.
You are conflating 2 things.
People learn better when it’s not for grades, more creative.
People learn rote information better when grades are hard.
It’s the different between knowing it and understanding it.
I have to laugh when I read these kind of comments. Children in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and part of the 70s were in large classes, practicing rote memorization in their younger years, "wasting" time on things like spelling and penmanship, etc. and being graded with bell curves, etc. but managed to propel the United States into the tech age and had plenty of creativity. No, you can't "understand it" if you don't first "know it."
Try having a political debate with kids in college now. They have little factual knowledge/context to back up their "critical thinking."
This is just false. I think you underestimate how much content knowledge people have. It's just different now that we have access to a ton of information on the web--it's more distributed knowledge. There's also a lot less assurance that what were "facts" are true--the textbooks of the earlier days were riddled with misinformation and bias but it wasn't known. Now kids are taught to assess the quality of information sources. I have found my kid in a basic public school education has acquired a lot of content knowledge.
Would it be better if kids were all internally motivated to learn as much as possible? Sure, but you are in dreamland if you think that will motivate the bulk of the population.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.
This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?
I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.
This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?
Anonymous wrote:How will parents react if their kids start coming home with Bs and Cs? A lot of parents I know would absolutely freak out. They don’t really care how much their kids have actually learned, they want all As.
Anecdotally, I will say that the class I learned the most in and remember much of the material to this day, was the class I got Cs in when I was in high school. That teacher was known as a tough grader, and I worked really, really hard only to end up with Cs. I was mad at him at the time, but in college and then in my adult life, I am amazed at how much I learned and retained from that class.
So, just one story, but it makes me think this study has a very interesting outcome.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.
You learned kids shouldn’t be graded hard?
You would be shocked at how many teachers think grades should be eliminated all together...
If there was adequate time to write narratives for every student then eliminating grades would be very worthy of exploration.
But that's a fantasy! So grades are needed, for better or worse.
-teacher
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.
I don’t think much of teacher education is grounded in reality these days. That’s depressing. And explains how we got the Lucy Caulkins crap spread around the country.
You are conflating 2 things.
People learn better when it’s not for grades, more creative.
People learn rote information better when grades are hard.
It’s the different between knowing it and understanding it.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.
Anonymous wrote:How will parents react if their kids start coming home with Bs and Cs? A lot of parents I know would absolutely freak out. They don’t really care how much their kids have actually learned, they want all As.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.
I don’t think much of teacher education is grounded in reality these days. That’s depressing. And explains how we got the Lucy Caulkins crap spread around the country.
You are conflating 2 things.
People learn better when it’s not for grades, more creative.
People learn rote information better when grades are hard.
It’s the different between knowing it and understanding it.
I have to laugh when I read these kind of comments. Children in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and part of the 70s were in large classes, practicing rote memorization in their younger years, "wasting" time on things like spelling and penmanship, etc. and being graded with bell curves, etc. but managed to propel the United States into the tech age and had plenty of creativity. No, you can't "understand it" if you don't first "know it."
Try having a political debate with kids in college now. They have little factual knowledge/context to back up their "critical thinking."
This is just false. I think you underestimate how much content knowledge people have. It's just different now that we have access to a ton of information on the web--it's more distributed knowledge. There's also a lot less assurance that what were "facts" are true--the textbooks of the earlier days were riddled with misinformation and bias but it wasn't known. Now kids are taught to assess the quality of information sources. I have found my kid in a basic public school education has acquired a lot of content knowledge.
Would it be better if kids were all internally motivated to learn as much as possible? Sure, but you are in dreamland if you think that will motivate the bulk of the population.