 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 776 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 02:58 pm |
|
Grading Disparities Peeve Parents
With No Baseline Among Districts, Some Say Students Suffer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/27/ST2007122700228.html
By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 27, 2007; A01
Marcy Newberger grew up in Montgomery County and attended Churchill High School. Then she moved to Fairfax County and had children, who attended McLean High School. Both were fine schools in good systems, with one irritating difference.
Simply put, Fairfax high schools set a higher bar for grades than those in Montgomery. To earn an A in Fairfax, it takes a score of 94 to 100. In Montgomery, it takes a score of 90 or higher. Standards for grading in the two counties, including bonus point calculations, are so out of sync that it appears possible for a Fairfax student to earn a 3.5 grade-point average for the same work that gets a Montgomery student a 4.6 GPA. . . .
|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 553 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 03:29 pm |
|
And this is surprising . . . why? I can't imagine parents (and students) didn't know this already.
It's no different than something like National Merit (stolen from the other thread - sorry), where a 217 in one state gets you Finalist and 222 in another means you're only Commended.
Is an A at Boston Latin the same thing as an A at East Boston High, even though they are in the same district? Don't think so.
Why stir up controversy when there is none? Or shall we have the government come in and establish "standards" for curriculum and grading? That'll work real well!
|
Deja
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 04:48 pm |
|
Chedva wrote: And this is surprising . . . why? I can't imagine parents (and students) didn't know this already.
It's no different than something like National Merit (stolen from the other thread - sorry), where a 217 in one state gets you Finalist and 222 in another means you're only Commended.
Is an A at Boston Latin the same thing as an A at East Boston High, even though they are in the same district? Don't think so.
Why stir up controversy when there is none? Or shall we have the government come in and establish "standards" for curriculum and grading? That'll work real well!
My thoughts exactly. My district is on the 94 and above = A category (and there are no pluses or minuses). I wouldn't think to complain about it. I would hope that our district's grading policy is provided to colleges.
217 being Finalist in one state and 222 only Commended in another is a bitter pill to swallow. But what really gets me is the states with very low index scores for Finalist status! 202 being a Finalist? That seems ridiculous to be considered a "National" Merit Scholar. A 202 isn't a "national" accomplishment, because that's not so great on a "national" level! (And of course there's a little bit of sour grapes on a personal level, because my son just got his PSAT scores online, and he missed last year's Semifinalist cutoff for our state --higher than most but not all states -- by one freaking point. )
Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:47 pm by Deja
|
HijinksAndSue
Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 06:59 pm |
|
I had the same thoughts reading the paper this morning (just adding a little drama grist to the already existant Fairfax vs MoCo issues) ... funny thing is we had already discussed this in my house a few days ago because my DD's bandmate goes to HS in Fairfax (we're in MoCo) and she told me his school had a tougher grading scale.
This certainly should not have been a surprise to anyone with kids already in the system, and I can't imagine it would be of interest to anyone NOT in the system. Seemed like a drama-mama article.
Interesting too to see how much the NMS cutoff has risen since I was in high school (paleolithic era). IIRC my PSAT year the national cutoff was approximately 198-199. I remember I lived in New York and my score was one point short of semi-finalist status and I would have been a semifinalist in, I think, 47 other states.
Has the test gotten easier or have kids gotten smarter?
Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:00 pm by HijinksAndSue
|
limner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 807 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:37 pm |
|
HijinksAndSue wrote:
Has the test gotten easier or have kids gotten smarter?
The latter, at least, is true, according to research done by a New Zealand social scientist, James Flynn (see the New Yorker article here: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell
Apparently, IQ scores keep going up. Makes for interesting reading and seems to say that IQ isn't the immutable characteristic once thought.
As for grading, PSAT scores, etc., our county has a 93+ is an A scale. And our PSAT cutoff is (or, at least, was over the last couple of years) much higher than I would have thought for a bunch of hicks  . I was perusing those cutoffs the other day, cleaning out old e-mails. (My H had looked them up to see our S's likelihood of being a finalist. S was well above the cutoff, whew.)
Oh, wait, forgot to ask: How do they come up with those cutoffs, anyway?Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:39 pm by limner
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 776 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:39 pm |
|
Has the test gotten easier or have kids gotten smarter? They did "recenter" the scores about 12 years ago, which didn't make the test easier as such but made it somewhat easier to get higher scores. Here's a conversion table to show the relationship between SAT scores before and after recentering: http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/equivalence-tables/sat-score
At the same time, the "kids have gotten smarter" (I would surmise) in part by actually prepping for the PSAT rather than just using it as a dry run for the SAT. Both PSAT and SAT scores can be raised through prep and practice.
Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:46 pm by mackinaw
|
leftcoast
Member
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:56 pm |
|
Re the Flynn effect: no one is getting "smarter", but kids are simply exposed to the types of questions typical for IQ tests earlier and more frequently. "IQ" tests do not test "intelligence" -- they test the ability to answer certain types of questions that we arbitrarily associate with intelligence. Flynn effect = "testing effect" (i.e., the result of practice and previous exposure). It doesn't matter whether the kids have been exposed to the same test previously -- the point is that, especially with t.v. & the internet, kids are exposed to the same type of question/answer and problem solving format earlier and earlier .... as far back as the Sesame Street "one of these things is not like the other" song.
Last edited on Fri Dec 28th, 2007 11:15 pm by leftcoast
|
Lupine
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 08:13 pm |
|
Grading standards are different at different schools, as the article points out, but the grading variances between teachers is huge even within the same school. For example, one teacher in our school is known for giving a lot of 7 point quizzes, and our school's grading score is >=90 gets an A. Anything but a perfect score doesn't get an A with this teacher.
Teachers always have been able to adjust the grading "yield curve" by adjusting the difficulty of tests, or adding a few really easy test items if they want the average grade to go up, or allowing students to redo work for a higher grade.
Our music classes grade based on attendence. You start with a perfect grade, and each time you miss class you lose a few points. You can make up lost points with a practice tape, but ultimately, the A grade you get from the music class contributes just as much to the GPA calculation as the A you earn for regular physics.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 776 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 08:13 pm |
|
I think the recentering and the prep (including the Flynn Effect as Leftcoast describes the broader experience at taking IQ-type tests) have contributed to the sense of entitlement and competitiveness of admissions to the most selective schools. Without such effects, which don't reflect an increase in the underlying preparation or qualification for college, fewer students would feel that they have a chance at those schools, and we would have fewer stories about how Princeton, Stanford, etc. etc. are turning down students with perfect scores.
Adcoms do -- and really must -- look beyond test scores that have become less "discriminating" among applicants and when, as Leftcoast also points out, the test scores reflect the students' ability to answer the types of questions these tests ask rather than the students' more general intellectual abilities, character, and achievements.
Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2007 10:27 pm by mackinaw
|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 553 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 08:41 pm |
|
Grading standards are different at different schools, as the article points out, but the grading variances between teachers is huge even within the same school.
Amen! And their curriculum varies, too. My d took honors physics from a teacher who prided himself on teacher a tougher course than the AP physics. The other honors physics teacher taught at an honors, not AP, level. D, not being a math/science kid, was not happy. She spent so much time working to get a B in physics that the rest of her GPA suffered.
So if we can't equalize things in one school, how do we do it between schools? Isn't this all part of "local control" of education?
|
WestrnMom
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 1161 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 10:02 pm |
|
Mackinaw, that sense of entitlement hit me in the face when I first found CC. Thankfully, there isn't much of that shown here. I realized right away when I saw the intensive, almost compulsive test prep going on among our local high school students that the testing system is inherently flawed. If a student can raise points by prepping, then it's useless in determining natural abilities to succeed at the university level.
There is no way there is ever going to be grading uniformity between schools. Students must make the best of the schools in which they find themselves and become educated. Those who attend more rigorous high schools are going to be better prepared for college than those who get easy A's at less competitive schools, so in the end, the system institutes fairness. I still believe it's less important where one gets an undergraduate degree than what the student makes of it.
|
Consolation
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 01:10 pm |
|
WestrnMom wrote: Mackinaw, that sense of entitlement hit me in the face when I first found CC. Thankfully, there isn't much of that shown here. I realized right away when I saw the intensive, almost compulsive test prep going on among our local high school students that the testing system is inherently flawed. If a student can raise points by prepping, then it's useless in determining natural abilities to succeed at the university level.
There is no way there is ever going to be grading uniformity between schools. Students must make the best of the schools in which they find themselves and become educated. Those who attend more rigorous high schools are going to be better prepared for college than those who get easy A's at less competitive schools, so in the end, the system institutes fairness. I still believe it's less important where one gets an undergraduate degree than what the student makes of it.
Re paragraph one, My kid got the highest SAT scores in his class and he never took a prep course, unlike his almost-as-high-scoring friends. Neither did he prepare using the online courses that were made available to everyone. Nor did he spend more than two hours at most going through practice tests that are also available to everyone. Another example: he has a classmate who is very bright but rather an underachiever. My son has always thought this kid very smart--some other friends were surprised when he too got great SATs. The SATs enabled this kid to show what he is capable of, despite being turned off by regular schooling. And if a kid is able to raise his or her scores by studying assiduously: what's wrong with that? Isn't that exactly the same thing that is usually rewarded with grades? Except in the case of standardized tests, there's no teacher expectation standing in the way of a kid earning whatever he or she can earn.
In sum, I think that SAT scores have validity **as one data point among many** considered by adcoms. I think they also, as I've said before, have the advantage of being almost the only place where a kid can go out and *anonymously* be compared to others: SATs are about the only thing not dependent on currying favor with teachers, administrators, or anyone else.
Re the second paragraph, ultimately what one makes of one's education and life is of course the important thing. But there is little doubt in my mind that--generally speaking, there are always exceptions--there is a big difference in the baseline evel of general education and preparedness one can expect of a person with a BA from a "top" school and a person from a significantly lesser school. I say this based on a number of years of hiring people to do a job that requires the ability to write well, communicate clearly, think, learn new things quickly, search out information, and so on. (I'm sure that to some degree this reflected the gifts of the individual going in, but I think it also reflects the exercising of those gifts demanded by a good college.)
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 776 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 07:26 pm |
|
IMO, the "problem" with prepping isn't that many students do it but that the ability to afford the various PR, Kaplan, and tutoring etc., services, and even the amount of help given at school, depends so much on the students' economic background and type of K-12 schools they attend. So this increases the social class-based disparities in scores. (My kids could have afforded such services but neither spent more than an hour prepping for their PSAT/SAT's; however, my daughter took a PR course prepping for the GMAT recently, and considers it well worth her time and my money.)
I do agree that SAT's are a way for underachievers to show their ability. They also, however, sometimes show that high scorers are underachievers and perhaps less college-ready than students who score well both on tests and in GPA's, EC's, etc. Some colleges will take a bet on such underachievers; others may use it as a mark against an applicant. The smaller schools probably are more likely to take a wholistic view and try to assess from the student's grades, scores, essays, letters of reference, and EC's what that student has to offer to and benefit from admission to the particular college.
I agree with you that choice of college makes a difference in many cases to the student's learning and future career. I think I am a different person today for attending a small LAC than I would have been had I done what three of my sibs did and attended UCSD-UCLA. Though maybe that would have "evened out" later on after I had attended graduate school -- assuming I'd have made a similar decision to do so, which is itself a question.
Last edited on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 12:04 am by mackinaw
|
WestrnMom
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 1161 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 07:48 pm |
|
Consolation, I agree with you about hiring from quality schools. However, there are schools in the middle, not top, not the worst either, that turn out very capable students who are very employable. The idea that a student who doesn't attend an elite school is not employable is not proven out by the statistics, either. A recent article, which I don't have a link to, listed the schools that some of our most important public figures have attended, and most did not go to elite colleges or Ivies. Instead, a lot of them went to their flagship state universities or to small LACs.
|
Consolation
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 474 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 10:22 pm |
|
WestrnMom wrote: Consolation, I agree with you about hiring from quality schools. However, there are schools in the middle, not top, not the worst either, that turn out very capable students who are very employable. The idea that a student who doesn't attend an elite school is not employable is not proven out by the statistics, either. A recent article, which I don't have a link to, listed the schools that some of our most important public figures have attended, and most did not go to elite colleges or Ivies. Instead, a lot of them went to their flagship state universities or to small LACs.
NOWHERE did I write or suggest that "a student who doesn't attend an elite school in not employable."
I have hired people who were graduates of everything from Harvard to little-known regional schools of which I bet almost no one here has ever heard.
All I'm saying is that the people who came in to my office with degrees from comparatively "name" schools--which includes many flagship state universities and small LACs, I might add--more *consistently* demonstrated a higher level of certain skills when they walked in the door. Those were skills that were particularly suited to the job for which I was hiring, and those were skills that were consistent with someone who had had a quality liberal arts education. Other people also walked through the door with those skills with other kinds of school names on their resumes. I didn't care about the name, and I hired them too. I'm simply making an observation based on experience.
I would also point out that the skills I was looking for are not necessarily the same skills that make for successful public figures. I wasn't looking for sales ability, entrepreneurship, outsize self confidence, or any other of a number of things that probably track more with ending up as an important public figure.
Last edited on Fri Dec 28th, 2007 10:25 pm by Consolation
|
Current time is 10:23 pm | |
|
|
|
|
