Education: No Zero Grading Policy Opinions

[Seydaman]

Also teachers don't get paid enough to care and I feel strongly that the other side of that issue is the whole "tenure" thing where a teacher can work x-amount of years and basically become un-fireable because of "tenure" allowing the teacher to fuck-off and collect a paycheck. I still think teachers should be paid by both experience and merit, not just simply years in the trenches.
There's a lot more wrong with the education system, but a way to start off is by allowing teachers to explore different methods of getting students interested in their education rather than forcing them to work by "standards" that hold some students back thereby bringing the education system down.

State standards are often enforced due to an issue early on in the education system wherein a student would get an uneven education. Teachers would focus on varying areas so that two students in two different towns could have radically different educations.

For example, student A could do advanced calculus and program, but couldn't tell you anything about history. Student B was writing masterful essays and poetry, but couldn't solve an algebra problem to save their life. So we introduced standards (Things like state testing)

I agree about paying teachers more. Seriously, put them on the same pay level as lawyers and doctors, make the people who shape our future actually paid for that importance. Do you know how much college professors get in relation to grade school teachers?

 

[krazykidd]

What . The . Fuck . Seriously . If you don't do your work , or don't hand it in on time ( without a valid reason)you should get a 0. Why are we teaching kids it's okay to not so shit? What's going to happen when they at work and don't hand in their report on time? School is suppse to prepare you for real life.

Yeah because at my work if I had to do something and I didn't do it on time they just wouldn't accept it after that. No wait they would still expect me to do my my job, there might be a consequence for not doing it on time or doing it right, but they still want me to do it.

You'd get fired , and deserve it . If i'm paying you to do a job , and you don't do it , why would i keep you?

 

[shootthebandit]

-.

I agree with you but that last thing you want to do is put someone down track A when they are inevitably going to fail then end on track B anyway. I wouldnt recommend sending someone with basic literary and numerary skills to go to university

I think we should be able to choose within reason. Perhaps if students at this point were taken aside for a one to one interview in which recommends a path for them but doesnt choose a path for them

You said while a doctor earns more than a builder there will always be "stigma" sure we use money to value someones worth but a builder is still a respectable trade. There are professions such as corrupt bankers and "ambulance chasing" lawyers that are well paid but socially have little respect. What about policeman and fireman (who often have another job on the side) who earn little yet are still respected. Your average army private is probably the most underpaid job globally yet one of the most respected

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, maybe it's because I'm an uncouth and ignorant American, but why wouldn't you give students a zero for not turning in an assignment? Now, I understand if you have too much work (I regularly went home in high school with 3 or four books easily making my backpack feel like lead weight) and something has to give. But you shouldn't be turning in every assignment late.

Anyway, I'll answer the questions.

1. What did you grow up with? (And where?)
As I said, I'm an American. I live in the Southeast US, actually. And In my experience, you could get zeroes on any assignment. Now, teachers usually allowed you to turn in late if you had a valid reason. Such as you were sick. And you could make up quizzes and tests after school. I've never felt my teachers were unreasonable.

2. What do you think of the no zero policy?
It sounds stupid. That should be up to the teacher and the student. You're basically saying that you can be lazy and not do you work and be rewarded, or at least not punished, for it. Try that at work.

I've also heard of another extreme. Teachers with a "No A" policy. A policy that no work was worthy of an A. And even teachers with policies of "only one A and two B's per assignment" for a class. Those policies sound horrible to me. Admittedly I heard about them as college courses from specific professors.

I see these policies as opposite extremes on the scale. And they are all equally bad policies.

3. What do you think is wrong with the policy?
As I said. It rewards, or refuses to punish, people for being lazy and not doing their work. Now, I am a lazy person, but I will always turn in my work or do my job. Not doing that will only result in utter failure (I'm actually pretty hard working at my job, just lazy at doing things I don't want to do).

Plus, I fear for a teacher getting a deluge of late assignments in at the last minute from students who did all that late work the night before.

But what's really annoying is that it undermines the students who actually did the assignment and turned it in on time. Like they were supposed to. Doing things the right way, offers no benefit. This isn't about grading ability. It's teaching students that not doing you work has consequences.

4. What do you think is right with the policy?
Nothing. It's all wrong. It's a bad policy. There shouldn't be a policy that forces teachers to accept an assignment no matter how late it is. It ties the teachers hands. I'd compare it to mandatory sentences for drug offenses.

 

[Raikas]

Then why use grades as a barrier at all? It serves absolutely zero purpose. Let people enter the track they want to enter.

But if they end up dropping down to a lower track within 6 months (presumably because of performance, so it's still about test scores), where's the difference?

It must be voluntary. There is simply no advantage to imposing on students what future they are allowed to pursue. It doesn't benefit students, it doesn't benefit teachers, and it doesn't benefit society.

But how does it benefit teachers to have students failing their classes?

I live in Canada (Ontario), and secondary schools here have different tracks (academic and applied), because people have different levels of ability - in general you need academic credits to go to university (although some arts programs take people with mixed track credits), but you can certainly go to college (which I gather is like community college in the US or vocational college in the UK) with applied credits, so they're still not being forced into some dead-end future. It's just reality that some people don't have the math (or whatever) aptitude to make it in certain professions - so why would you want them to spend years struggling in a higher track courses when they could be succeeding in the lower one?

 

[Amir Kondori]

American schools suck for so many reasons. Of course changes will be slow to come, if they come at all, no matter if they are even the right changes to make.

 

[Amir Kondori]

1) It's not that we don't need more college-educated students so much as nobody actually needs frivolous degrees like art history majors. I'm all for vocational education.

Who are you to decide what degrees we need or don't need? Have you consumed the spice, looked down the God Emperor's Golden Path and mapped every possible future in the space-time continuum? How dare you presume to know which disciplines are necessary and which ones aren't? Literally speaking, no education of any kind is necessary- our species could just as easily have never become anymore than hunter-gatherers who die in their 30s from infections of the gums. But frankly, I appreciate an existence that's a little bit more ambitious.

Sounds like a typical working class attitude to me. Art History is important culturally, the jobs market already does a plenty good job putting selective pressure on which degree's people get.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Also teachers don't get paid enough to care and I feel strongly that the other side of that issue is the whole "tenure" thing where a teacher can work x-amount of years and basically become un-fireable because of "tenure" allowing the teacher to fuck-off and collect a paycheck. I still think teachers should be paid by both experience and merit, not just simply years in the trenches.
There's a lot more wrong with the education system, but a way to start off is by allowing teachers to explore different methods of getting students interested in their education rather than forcing them to work by "standards" that hold some students back thereby bringing the education system down.

State standards are often enforced due to an issue early on in the education system wherein a student would get an uneven education. Teachers would focus on varying areas so that two students in two different towns could have radically different educations.

For example, student A could do advanced calculus and program, but couldn't tell you anything about history. Student B was writing masterful essays and poetry, but couldn't solve an algebra problem to save their life. So we introduced standards (Things like state testing)

I agree about paying teachers more. Seriously, put them on the same pay level as lawyers and doctors, make the people who shape our future actually paid for that importance. Do you know how much college professors get in relation to grade school teachers?

Just a note: Now we've skewed the system to pass kids who can take standardized tests well and memorize things they'll forget by the end of summer. And there are still students who are getting jack shit out of their education because of the time spent in class preparing for those standardized tests (FCAT in Florida takes up a couple months of my own kid's school, and its not learning its cramming review).

 

[Raikas]

The difference is if they drop down of their own accord versus being told they aren't allowed to even try.

That's a major difference. A critical difference. Anyone who has studied any published research on education knows that motivation is a factor. Being told which branch one is allowed to enter kills motivation. Being allowed to choose which branch is best for you (and then to change if it turns out your choice was wrong) can preserve motivation.

Sure, but there are still people who want to study at the academic level but can't handle it. In both cases they don't get to do what they want, they just have to take a few extra tests before they're bumped down.

It must be voluntary. There is simply no advantage to imposing on students what future they are allowed to pursue. It doesn't benefit students, it doesn't benefit teachers, and it doesn't benefit society.

But how does it benefit teachers to have students failing their classes?

I didn't say it benefits teachers to have students failing their classes- that's a straw man. However, it benefits teachers vastly to make sure that their students want to be in their classes- I know from experience there's little more lethal to student motivation than when the student is told they have to take a class because they aren't quite good enough to take the class they want to take.

But getting rid of tracks doesn't change required courses. Someone who isn't interested in a required course - where I am, students in their first year of high school need to take Math, Science, English, French, and Phys Ed (plus electives), and that's true whether they're at the academic track or the applied track.

If a few students fail the class, that doesn't hurt the teacher. Indeed, a savy teacher may even be able to find a way to make use of it. I once worked with an elementary school teacher who paired up the strongest student in her class with a boy with Down's Syndrome whose potential to ever speak his own language was limited at best, let alone his potential to learn the second language I was teaching.

I'm not at all anti-mainstreaming, but there's a huge difference in elementary school and high school classes, both in terms of goals and the way the kids are marked.

so why would you want them to spend years struggling in a higher track courses when they could be succeeding in the lower one?

You misunderstand the argument. I don't want anyone in any particular track. The only things I'm arguing against are A) assigning someone to a track against their will, B) the notion that classroom grades accurately predict professional competence, and C) the notion that a 14 year old test score has one iota of predictive ability towards someone's adult capabilities.

On A: I don't see how this doesn't happen eventually. For example, I had a friend in high school who wanted to be a botanist, but was terrible at math - since that's a career that requires university she repeatedly tried and failed to pass the higher level of math, but she just didn't have the talent for it (she seriously retook the grade 9 math course two semesters in a row and then again during the summer). She dropped down to the lower level course, got As and eventually ended up going to an agricultural college and is now in a landscaping career that she loves.

On B/C: I think a fair bit of that depends on the profession - careers in engineering and the hard sciences tend to require a certain educational background for success. I don't disagree that a lot of careers don't, but plenty of the people I see succeeding in business went to college rather than university, so I don't see how they were harmed by it (I have two friends who went into banking, one with a university degree and one with a college diploma, and ten+ years after graduation they pretty much do the same thing).

 

[frizzlebyte]

The thing is, we don't give grades at all until students are atleast 14/15 because honestly, grades don't matter before that. I think that's honestly the real big difference, I have no clue where you've got the "no 0's" things from. We simply don't grade people at an early age, other than "good job" or "work on your spelling/grammar/whatever".

I read about this in a Smithsonian Magazine (the official publication from our national museum) article a few years ago, and ever since I've wondered how this would do in America. I think it would be great, really, but I don't know if the culture would ever support it. Our school system and culture tends to foster an "achievement competition," at least from my perspective, where the parents push the kids to perform better and better at school.

Is that less of a problem in Sweden, because I can't see the "no grades until you're older" thing working out unless it is.

Here everyone would be concerned about not being able to measure their kid's "success."

 

[Trivea]

So I have a few questions for you:
1. What did you grow up with? (And where?)
2. What do you think of the no zero policy?
3. What do you think is wrong with the policy?
and 4. What do you think is right with the policy?

1. Texas, United States. And where I went to school, you could get zeroes. You were allowed to make up assignments when you actually missed class (for a valid reason) or had something come up preventing you from completing a homework assignment, but if you simply didn't do the work, you failed the assignment.

2. I think it could work in countries that aren't the United States. If it's a place where students still care about their grades? Sure. But if it is, you shouldn't have a problem with kids repeatedly not bringing in assignments.

3. The "no one fails" policies that the US is already adopting is not the right path to take in our society, mostly because students today don't care if they pass or fail. My mother is an English teacher at an alternative education program (basically a pseudo-military school where kids who have been suspended for fighting or bringing weapons to school go so they don't fall behind) and most of her students act out and fail on purpose. Giving them more leeway is the same as giving them less incentive to actually do the work.

4. I think it's good to give a bit more grace to kids who are struggling with the material or with home lives or something. Personally, though, I don't really like it. What's wrong with giving kids zeroes when that's what they've earned? It's a teacher's job to give out the assignments and collect them when they're due, not run around after the students telling them "if you could finish that assignment sometime soon that would be nice but I don't want to rush you". Trust me, teachers have way, way too much to do to make sure that students are on the ball at home as well as at school.

 

[Rad Party God]

Jalisco, Mexico. We don't have the "no-zero" policy (never heard of it before and I'm all for it) and belive me, I recieved many 0's in my lifetime (I was just lazy, not dumb), but in high-school, I met a few teachers with quite unusual ways to grade our work and I still remember them quite fondly for that. Similar to the "no 0", they graded us for our skills and not for our behaviour.

Granted, it was on a "by teacher" basis, not all of them did that.

 

[shootthebandit]

-

-

Pretty much what this guy said. You dont want people to down a path that they are going to struggle in then move sidewards (i dont like the phrase "drop down") onto another path. The student is then years behind themselves and is playing catch up to both paths.

Like i said the exams should take place roughly age 14 considering you can leave school and get a job at 16

 

[Eddie the head]

You'd get fired , and deserve it . If i'm paying you to do a job , and you don't do it , why would i keep you?

No manager is going to fire someone for one mistake, well no good manager. To answer the last question a reasonable person understates that life sometimes gets in the way, and we all make mistakes? Yeah there is going to be consequences for making a mistake, but the idea that you will get fired on spot is just laughably inaccurate.

Lets take this to a different example; if I don't file my taxes dose the IRS not accept them? No they still want me to file my taxes. Again there will be a consequence, but they still want me to do it. If you get a zero for not getting an assignment in on time that takes away any incentive to do it. That's not how life works, if you don't do something on time there is consequence but they still expect you to do it.

 

[Korolev]

1. I grew up with zero-grading, and I live in Australia. I went to a public school for the first 2 years of schooling, then my family shelled out money to put me in a private school for the rest of my schooling. Both used zero-grading, and from a fairly young age as well.

2. I think it's great for anyone under the age of 15. Too many times, when I was going through my schooling, I saw fellow classmates repeatedly hit with zeros, or near zeroes, and they lost all enthusiasm. Worse still, teachers tended to look at the "zero" students and come to the conclusion that they were just "not cut out" for academic work. The zero grading system didn't just hurt the student's sense of self-worth, it also condemned them to the category of "useless" in the teacher's mind. The teachers came to see the zero students as mess-up, no-good, stupid, "destined-for-manual-labor" types who didn't warrant attention except to hand out detention.

The No-Zero Grading system forces teachers to try to get the student to improve. They are not seen as "zeroes", they are seen as people in need of help. It was always ridiculous in my school that the talented, brightest students got the most attention, and the worst students got barely any attention.

3. There are some downsides to the policy. Real life hands out zeroes, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. Also, employers don't look at clueless employee and think "Now how am I going to improve his report writing skills?" - they think "how can I fire this schlub and hire someone who can write a freaking report!" Universities hand out zeros. Also, we want people to try. Fear is a motivator - it's a great motivator. It's what got me through schooling, a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and now the first two years (assuming I pass my exams in November) of Medical School. If we gave the impression that "you can always try again", we may run the risk of students becoming lax and uncaring towards their studies.

4. As before, I think it's fairly good for schooling up till the age of 14 and 15. In Australia (at least in the State of Suuny Queensland), our rankings that we graduate with are based ONLY on the grades the person has attained through years 11 and 12. Grades from year 10 and downwards? Not counted at all. Which begs the question of why we need to give grades in years 10 and downward. If they're not going to count, why hand them out and damage a child's self-esteem? I accept that grades are important, but let's not beat down a child's sense of self-worth with F's and 0's when they're young. Let's not teach them to feel like failures, humiliate them in their class and consign them to the "useless" category in a teacher's mind.

Too many teachers see a "zero" student and think "why bother? He'll/She'll be working on the assembly line, so why do I need to bother to teach them trigonometry or good writing skills?". Education is valuable for its own sake - even if a kid isn't "gifted", they still deserve an education, because education builds character - it really does. The educated man or woman is less likely to mug someone on the street, even if they are poor. Making the Early-years of schooling about grades, and you'll get a lot of kids who'll think "I'm no good, why should I bother" and even teachers thinking "They're no good, why should I bother?"

 

[Korolev]

So I have a few questions for you:
1. What did you grow up with? (And where?)
2. What do you think of the no zero policy?
3. What do you think is wrong with the policy?
and 4. What do you think is right with the policy?

1. Texas, United States. And where I went to school, you could get zeroes. You were allowed to make up assignments when you actually missed class (for a valid reason) or had something come up preventing you from completing a homework assignment, but if you simply didn't do the work, you failed the assignment.

2. I think it could work in countries that aren't the United States. If it's a place where students still care about their grades? Sure. But if it is, you shouldn't have a problem with kids repeatedly not bringing in assignments.

3. The "no one fails" policies that the US is already adopting is not the right path to take in our society, mostly because students today don't care if they pass or fail. My mother is an English teacher at an alternative education program (basically a pseudo-military school where kids who have been suspended for fighting or bringing weapons to school go so they don't fall behind) and most of her students act out and fail on purpose. Giving them more leeway is the same as giving them less incentive to actually do the work.

4. I think it's good to give a bit more grace to kids who are struggling with the material or with home lives or something. Personally, though, I don't really like it. What's wrong with giving kids zeroes when that's what they've earned? It's a teacher's job to give out the assignments and collect them when they're due, not run around after the students telling them "if you could finish that assignment sometime soon that would be nice but I don't want to rush you". Trust me, teachers have way, way too much to do to make sure that students are on the ball at home as well as at school.

This is true. You have to take into account the culture of the place. A lot of people from Finland and Japan and China like to lecture Americans on how to "make their schooling system work", but you don't realize that in Finland, Japan, China, etc, there still is a culture of honoring scholars. Doing well academically is still revered in those societies. In the US.... I don't know what happened to the culture of the US over the past 40 years, but that's gone away. They no longer care about doing well. Scholars are seen as 'nerds'. Doing well academically is not appreciated by the mainstream culture. It's really heart-breaking - say what you will about the US, they were (and still are to some extent) technological and scientific giants. So much of the world's modern science came out of the US. The US has made great, fantastic contributions to molecular biology, material science, particle physics, aerospace engineering and I do believe they still have the best technology in the World - their National Ignition Facility is amazing.

But that's going away. Academic success is no longer valued within the Culture of the USA. I don't know why. I don't know how it happened, but it no longer is. The Non-Zero Grading policy is good, but it works best in a culture that encourages children to try to succeed. Motivation does not and CANNOT come from teachers alone - parents, society, popular culture - they all have to motivate a student. The Japanese do well in school because society will shun them if they fail. They try because their society still honors those that test well, honors those that do well. Having a bright mind is seen as a good thing. In the US, that's not the case anymore, which is very sad. I believe it was in the Run up to the 2012 election that one of the Republican Candidates, Rick Santorum, said "Obama wants everyone to go to college.... what a SNOB!" Yes, unfortunately, you do get people in the US who look down on the "educated" types as "elitists".

A zero-grade policy may help, but it won't change the problem the US and a lot of other countries have - a cultural problem. Wealth and Affluence have given the young the impression that education is unnecessary, superfluous. If "Fiddy" cent can succeed without a college degree, why do I need one? I'm going to twerk on TV and earn fame and fortune! is what so many kids think these days. We stopped teaching kids the importance of a good education.

 

[Sarge034]

So I have a few questions for you:
1. What did you grow up with? (And where?)
2. What do you think of the no zero policy?
3. What do you think is wrong with the policy?
and 4. What do you think is right with the policy?

1) USA- I grew up with pre-NCLB (no child left behind) 0s and Fs and post-NCLB 0's and F's.

2) I think you have incorrect information on the NCLB act... You can still get 0's and F's. It just makes it where you advance in grade anyway and the school in penalized for having students underperform in the standardized tests.

As for not giving out failing grades and allowing the late turn in of work... School is to prepare you for a job. Show me a job that will not fire your ass for failing to do your work and gives you all the chances in the world (excluding my government of course).

3) NCLB- It is all about the school's placement in the standardized tests. So teachers teach the test. Anything not on the test is all but omitted, geography is a good example. The test standards are relative, so if all schools are in the 90-100 percentile any school scoring a 90-94% would be considered failing to meet expectations. Any schools failing to meet expectations are threatened to have their federal funding revoked until the scores go up.

No 0 policy- School is to prepare you for a job. Show me a job that will not fire your ass for failing to do your work and gives you all the chances in the world (excluding my government of course).

4) NCLB- The idea of holding schools responsible for their student's performance is actually really good. It is just that standardized testing does not need to be the only way comprehension is measured.

No 0 policy- Honestly, other than self esteem and ensuring that the work will (probably) get done eventually I'm having a hard time seeing this policy as a good thing. Perhaps I would be of more help if I had actually experienced it, but I am just an outsider commenting on what I think happens at this point.