Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

Thank you for this explanation. It makes a lot of sense

Indeed it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What score is it on the sats when the test takes just fillsnout their name date and dob and then just goes home. They technically did not write any answers. Do they get an 800?

It's been a while since I took the SAT, but I think that was the case. 800 was the lowest score but also back then high-scores were about 200 points lower than today since they changed the test in the early 90s.

So if you get 800 for doing nothing and the top score is 1600, then is it fair to say the SATs use the 50% rule?

If SATs use the 50% rule, then it must be fine!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What score is it on the sats when the test takes just fillsnout their name date and dob and then just goes home. They technically did not write any answers. Do they get an 800?

It's been a while since I took the SAT, but I think that was the case. 800 was the lowest score but also back then high-scores were about 200 points lower than today since they changed the test in the early 90s.

You get a 400 for filling out your name. The range is 200-800 for each section.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

I agree that 0-59 is unfair because it's larger than the 40-point passing range!

You must be trolling, but this is for people who need some assistance. The percentages serve as a bare minimum standard for acceptable knowledge in order to be considered "pass" worthy. Roughly 60% represents that you have an achieved proficiency in a little more than half the material/assignments. Thats why the failure range is so big because understanding half or less material is unacceptable in just about any endeavor that confers some sort of pass/certification/appraisal.

Giving people an automatic 50% for nothing means they have to work very little to achieve a passing grade. Assume a students overall test scores between 4 non-cumulative exams where: 2 exams the student received a 50 but didn't turn anything in or just showed up (policy dependent). And 2 exams where the student studied and received a 80 and a 70. Student passes with a 62/D even though they only showed they grasped 37% of the content. I don't think anyone who shows a 37% proficiency of total material should be "passed."

but lol at the "dErp, its like the SATs"

No it doesn't since that rarely happens. Mostly this separates an F from an F-.

MCPS does not have Fs or minuses. The lowest grade is E.

Grade 6 to Grade 12 Academic Grades
A 90-100 Outstanding level of performance
B 80-89 High level of performance
C 70-79 Acceptable level of performance
D 60-69 Minimal level of performance
E 0-59 Unacceptable level of performance

So you are saying it doesn't matter, then? Well, I agree. The kids who are getting 50% are hardly doing well. At least when or if someone gets a 50% for whatever reason, they might be able to recover from it.

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

Thank you for this explanation. It makes a lot of sense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

I agree that 0-59 is unfair because it's larger than the 40-point passing range!

You must be trolling, but this is for people who need some assistance. The percentages serve as a bare minimum standard for acceptable knowledge in order to be considered "pass" worthy. Roughly 60% represents that you have an achieved proficiency in a little more than half the material/assignments. Thats why the failure range is so big because understanding half or less material is unacceptable in just about any endeavor that confers some sort of pass/certification/appraisal.

Giving people an automatic 50% for nothing means they have to work very little to achieve a passing grade. Assume a students overall test scores between 4 non-cumulative exams where: 2 exams the student received a 50 but didn't turn anything in or just showed up (policy dependent). And 2 exams where the student studied and received a 80 and a 70. Student passes with a 62/D even though they only showed they grasped 37% of the content. I don't think anyone who shows a 37% proficiency of total material should be "passed."

but lol at the "dErp, its like the SATs"

No it doesn't since that rarely happens. Mostly this separates an F from an F-.

MCPS does not have Fs or minuses. The lowest grade is E.

Grade 6 to Grade 12 Academic Grades
A 90-100 Outstanding level of performance
B 80-89 High level of performance
C 70-79 Acceptable level of performance
D 60-69 Minimal level of performance
E 0-59 Unacceptable level of performance

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

I agree that 0-59 is unfair because it's larger than the 40-point passing range!

You must be trolling, but this is for people who need some assistance. The percentages serve as a bare minimum standard for acceptable knowledge in order to be considered "pass" worthy. Roughly 60% represents that you have an achieved proficiency in a little more than half the material/assignments. Thats why the failure range is so big because understanding half or less material is unacceptable in just about any endeavor that confers some sort of pass/certification/appraisal.

Giving people an automatic 50% for nothing means they have to work very little to achieve a passing grade. Assume a students overall test scores between 4 non-cumulative exams where: 2 exams the student received a 50 but didn't turn anything in or just showed up (policy dependent). And 2 exams where the student studied and received a 80 and a 70. Student passes with a 62/D even though they only showed they grasped 37% of the content. I don't think anyone who shows a 37% proficiency of total material should be "passed."

but lol at the "dErp, its like the SATs"

No it doesn't since that rarely happens. Mostly this separates an F from an F-.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

I agree that 0-59 is unfair because it's larger than the 40-point passing range!

You must be trolling, but this is for people who need some assistance. The percentages serve as a bare minimum standard for acceptable knowledge in order to be considered "pass" worthy. Roughly 60% represents that you have an achieved proficiency in a little more than half the material/assignments. Thats why the failure range is so big because understanding half or less material is unacceptable in just about any endeavor that confers some sort of pass/certification/appraisal.

Giving people an automatic 50% for nothing means they have to work very little to achieve a passing grade. Assume a students overall test scores between 4 non-cumulative exams where: 2 exams the student received a 50 but didn't turn anything in or just showed up (policy dependent). And 2 exams where the student studied and received a 80 and a 70. Student passes with a 62/D even though they only showed they grasped 37% of the content. I don't think anyone who shows a 37% proficiency of total material should be "passed."

but lol at the "dErp, its like the SATs"

Anonymous wrote:The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

I agree that 0-59 is unfair because it's larger than the 40-point passing range!

The argument that the failure range, 0-59, is unfair because it's larger than the 40 point passing range is invalid even if it seems correct at first.

It somehow came to be that demonstrating 60% knowledge was the minimal level for passing.

The 50% rule allows students to pass with less demonstrated knowledge. For example, if a student consistently scored 70, then 10, then 70, then 10...he would have demonstrated knowledge of 40% of the course material. Bumping those 10s to 50s would result in an average of 60%. The student gets credit for the couse after getting only 40% of all material correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What score is it on the sats when the test takes just fillsnout their name date and dob and then just goes home. They technically did not write any answers. Do they get an 800?

It's been a while since I took the SAT, but I think that was the case. 800 was the lowest score but also back then high-scores were about 200 points lower than today since they changed the test in the early 90s.

So if you get 800 for doing nothing and the top score is 1600, then is it fair to say the SATs use the 50% rule?

Anonymous wrote:What score is it on the sats when the test takes just fillsnout their name date and dob and then just goes home. They technically did not write any answers. Do they get an 800?

It's been a while since I took the SAT, but I think that was the case. 800 was the lowest score but also back then high-scores were about 200 points lower than today since they changed the test in the early 90s.

What score is it on the sats when the test takes just fillsnout their name date and dob and then just goes home. They technically did not write any answers. Do they get an 800?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increase in single parent households over the last 40 years is the leading cause of poverty and discipline issues across any demographic, IMO. And this in turn causes desperate academic outcomes. And the trend is clear across all demos.

Well, sort of. Single parent families are also on the increase across Europe, but poverty rates are not increasing. The difference is a functioning social safety net. It is very difficult to provide a stable economic base without two parents, but research shows that MC/UMC kids with single parent families have identical outcomes to kids in the same socioeconomic group with two parents in the home. The difference isn't the single parent - it's the money.

Right. Two parents provide money. Not everyone can be a senior business analyst but everyone can work lower skilled jobs and combine income and time to provide a stable environment for their kids. Subsidizing people to a greater degree is only treating the symptom.

It depends on your lens. Northern European countries have decided that "kids have a stable home" is important, so have prioritized ensuring that is possible.

The USA has decided that "incentivizing marriage" is important, so provides a weak safety net meant to force people into marriage through economic coersion.

There's a reason why divorce rates are climbing, and a reason why women institute the vast majority of divorces - as women have gained economic equality, they've emancipated themselves from heteronormative institutions.

I think the lens that matters here is American public schools because thats the scope of the thread and policy. I guess either way, we are subsidizing, but here, we do it through policies like this.

And women and men should be entitled to make decisions like initiate a divorce, especially as pay disparities have decreased, although not entirely. That doesn't mean that either are financially capable of providing for children, and thats the problem. You want children? You have to pay for them and care for them, including education. If there should be any efforts on closing the gaps, it should be on educating children and young adults of this reality, early and often.

I don't care if you are divorced or single, but please don't ask for free grades because you can't do the job. And yet, these academic gaps seemingly mirror the single parent gaps across demos.

Nobody asking for free grades. I think it's just setting a bottom like the SATs have a set bottom. It seems odd that grades A -D span a 40-point range while F makes up 60. That gives an F disproportional weight. So I'd argue it's not about "free grades" but punishing kids by emphasizing the negative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increase in single parent households over the last 40 years is the leading cause of poverty and discipline issues across any demographic, IMO. And this in turn causes desperate academic outcomes. And the trend is clear across all demos.

Well, sort of. Single parent families are also on the increase across Europe, but poverty rates are not increasing. The difference is a functioning social safety net. It is very difficult to provide a stable economic base without two parents, but research shows that MC/UMC kids with single parent families have identical outcomes to kids in the same socioeconomic group with two parents in the home. The difference isn't the single parent - it's the money.

Right. Two parents provide money. Not everyone can be a senior business analyst but everyone can work lower skilled jobs and combine income and time to provide a stable environment for their kids. Subsidizing people to a greater degree is only treating the symptom.

It depends on your lens. Northern European countries have decided that "kids have a stable home" is important, so have prioritized ensuring that is possible.

The USA has decided that "incentivizing marriage" is important, so provides a weak safety net meant to force people into marriage through economic coersion.

There's a reason why divorce rates are climbing, and a reason why women institute the vast majority of divorces - as women have gained economic equality, they've emancipated themselves from heteronormative institutions.

I think the lens that matters here is American public schools because thats the scope of the thread and policy. I guess either way, we are subsidizing, but here, we do it through policies like this.

And women and men should be entitled to make decisions like initiate a divorce, especially as pay disparities have decreased, although not entirely. That doesn't mean that either are financially capable of providing for children, and thats the problem. You want children? You have to pay for them and care for them, including education. If there should be any efforts on closing the gaps, it should be on educating children and young adults of this reality, early and often.

I don't care if you are divorced or single, but please don't ask for free grades because you can't do the job. And yet, these academic gaps seemingly mirror the single parent gaps across demos.