"No Zero" Policy at Maryland Schools

[LadySkinsFan]

I think it's a stupid policy. I was a medium student and not getting assignments in on time impacted my grades. It's funny that my career was proposal management where you have to get proposals in on time or they don't count. 

 

I received reduced grades for late work and I was marked down for wrong answers. 

 

Automatically giving a 50% doesn't encourage competence, it encourages laziness and people who are uneducated.

[The Evil Genius]

5 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

When I was in high school in the 1990s, we had a grading scale of 94-100 being an A. At some point I believe that's been lowered to 90-100 being an A (I could be wrong). 

 

That how it was in the early 90s in VA Beach too. That 94 for an A- was brutal.

 

That said ..I'm not sure I agree with some of the other arguments made here. I don't see this as anything other than grading on a curve...which just about every teacher does. But..it does seem inherently wrong to "reward" someone who doesn't turn in work during the year. I do think the college prof had the best solution tbh. I wish there were more of him when I was an undergrad. 

[Riggo-toni]

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Hell we should give them negative scores for being douchebags on top of not doing anything.

[bearrock]

Just make the scale 50-150.  Problem solved.  No need to thank me MD!

[Redskin4ever]

i know this was 25 years ago, but when I was in high school, athletes would fail off a team if they got an F in any class. At one point in the mid 90s, they changed it to you had to have 2 Fs to fail off the team. One of the coaches who had been there for about 15 years said that in all his years of the standard being 1 F, he only had 1 player fail off the team. After lowering the standard, he had 4 people fail off in one year. That's obviously 1 example, but I always believe people will rise to a challenge if you challenge them. If you let them fail a bit, they will fail every bit you let them if not more. This is true for most students who would fit into the average to above average students. As someone mentioned earlier, the great students will generally do all the work and on time. Plus whatever extra work they are given. 

 

Now, if there is a student who tries hard and just can't get it because they have other issues, that's a completely different story. But the key there is trying hard. There are kids in that boat who just give up and don't try because they aren't gaining any ground. To me, that's where a good teacher can make all the difference. They can work with that kid and find ways to get them to learn, not just give them a grade that will pass them along. 

[PokerPacker]

From zero tolerance policies, to zero-intolerance policies.

[techboy]

I've got news for some of you... In my experience, the kids that are motivated by grades don't want the 50 either, and will work to avoid it (exception being very bright students who know how to game their grade to get an A anyway, and these people are not the targets of this policy, nor do/can they do this very often).

 

The students that are not motivated by grades don't suddenly work because of zeroes, but they DO stop working if they feel like they're in a hole they can't get out of.

 

We have a similar policy where I teach (though we can give zeroes for completely missing work), and it just doesn't have the negative effect on work ethic some seem to expect.

[dfitzo53]

20 minutes ago, techboy said:

I've got news for some of you... In my experience, the kids that are motivated by grades don't want the 50 either, and will work to avoid it (exception being very bright students who know how to game their grade to get an A anyway, and these people are not the targets of this policy, nor do/can they do this very often).

 

The students that are not motivated by grades don't suddenly work because of zeroes, but they DO stop working if they feel like they're in a hole they can't get out of.

 

We have a similar policy where I teach (though we can give zeroes for completely missing work), and it just doesn't have the negative effect on work ethic some seem to expect.

I was going to say more or less the same thing.

 

Like techboy I've been teaching public school for a long time. There is a lot of traditional thinking about education and what motivates kids that is well-meaning but misguided.

 

Most research shows that the classic negative motivators like being held back a year and giving zeroes for missed work are not only unhelpful, they're actually counter-productive.

 

Grading in general is a practice that is of debatable merit.

[techboy]

17 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Most research shows that the classic negative motivators like being held back a year and giving zeroes for missed work are not only unhelpful, they're actually counter-productive.

 

It reminds me of the homelessness debate. Research and practice demonstrates that the best way to address homelessness is (surprise) to give people a home. Programs have had success giving each homeless person an apartment and access to a case manager. Most homelessness is temporary, so people move on, and of the ones that don't, it's still WAY cheaper than reacting to problems that arise. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece years ago about "Million Dollar Murray", a veteran with mental illness who had to be given medical services nearly daily, was costing his city over a million dollars a year, and sadly eventually died. It would have been WAY cheaper, and with a likely better outcome, to just buy the guy an apartment, even if he never could have moved on from it.

 

This doesn't fly with people that think it's not "fair" that some would have to work and others get things for free.

 

Too many people worry about "fair" (what about the kids doing their work!?!?), and not what actually works.

 

Zeroes don't work.

[PokerPacker]

If nothing else, the policy is leading us to an interesting discussion.

[Kosher Ham]

So...Special Ed is no longer an option.

 

I also blame the parents more than the teachers/

[Destino]

50 minutes ago, techboy said:

Zeroes don't work.

How are we defining working in this instance?  I realize that students will quit if it becomes mathematically impossible for them to pass, and that’s a real problem for teachers, but are they going back and learning what they missed by just gifting them points?  Shouldn’t students that don’t show that they know the material being taught, fail?  

[techboy]

14 minutes ago, Destino said:

How are we defining working in this instance?  I realize that students will quit if it becomes mathematically impossible for them to pass, and that’s a real problem for teachers, but are they going back and learning what they missed by just gifting them points?  Shouldn’t students that don’t show that they know the material being taught, fail?  

 

I define "working" as achieving the desired goals.

 

If zeroes are intended to motivate students to complete their work, they don't, at least not more than a 50. As I already noted, grade motivated students are just as motivated by a 50 (they don't want bad grades), and students who are not grade motivated don't care. Zeroes in fact often reduce motivation.

 

If zeroes are intended to accurately assess learning, they don't work. If a student doesn't do the assignment, I have no idea what he or she has learned. A zero does not accurately assess learning. A 50 might be inaccurate too, but it is no less inaccurate than a zero, and it does not come with the other baggage.

 

If zeroes are intended to punish the behavior of not completing their assignments, that doesn't work, because again, the students you're aiming for don't care about grades. Moreover, there is a very strong argument to be made that grades should assess learning, not behavior. 

 

Moreover, the use of a 100 point scale, as natural as it feels because most people had one growing up, is totally arbitrary. It is equally valid for a teacher to give a letter grade from A to F, and average using the point scale. On that scale, an A (4) and an F (0), average to a 2, which is a C. Few would argue against a teacher that does this (it even gives the F a zero!).

 

The same two assignments, with a 100 and a "given" 50, average to a 75. A C. EXACTLY the same grade.

 

A zero, though, makes an A (100) and an F (0) average out to a 50. It takes THREE perfect scores to raise that F to a C. Zeroes on the 100 point scale are devastating, in a way that most people don't actually realize, but trust me, a student does when he sees that even getting an A on the next assignment makes little difference.

 

Finally, a 50 IS failing. The only way a student earning 50s can pass is if he or she performs well on other assessments. If he or she is able to pass other assessments, that indicates learning. Why should a student who is learning fail? 

 

Maybe such a student gets a D or a C, but if grades are intended to assess learning, and not behavior, then a student who has demonstrated learning on other assessments SHOULDN'T fail. 

 

And really, a D or a C is what we're talking about. These are not Ivy bound students enjoying grade inflation. If these students go to college at all, they're going to an open acceptance community college. So where's the harm?

[techboy]

1 hour ago, Kosher Ham said:

So...Special Ed is no longer an option.

 

Special Education provides accommodations and supports to students with documented learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, or other specifically designated and legally defined criteria. It is not a program for students that lack motivation. It is not, contrary to what many people think, even for people with low intelligence. I have seen students referred for special education who were denied services, even though they were low, because there was no identifiable disability.

[Destino]

Techboy, thanks for taking the time to respond to this stuff.  It's nice to have an actual teacher weighing in.  I hope none of this seems like an attack on you or teachers.  I know teachers care and fight for our kids on a daily basis in a challenging environment.  You have to actually deal with challenging students and I'm looking at this from outside, as a parent, and probably thinking in terms of ideals which rarely hold up very well in practice. 

 

15 hours ago, techboy said:

 

If zeroes are intended to motivate students to complete their work, they don't, at least not more than a 50. As I already noted, grade motivated students are just as motivated by a 50 (they don't want bad grades), and students who are not grade motivated don't care. Zeroes in fact often reduce motivation.

 

If zeroes are intended to accurately assess learning, they don't work. If a student doesn't do the assignment, I have no idea what he or she has learned. A zero does not accurately assess learning. A 50 might be inaccurate too, but it is no less inaccurate than a zero, and it does not come with the other baggage.

 

If zeroes are intended to punish the behavior of not completing their assignments, that doesn't work, because again, the students you're aiming for don't care about grades. Moreover, there is a very strong argument to be made that grades should assess learning, not behavior. 

I was under the impression that scores 0-100, including 0-49, were meant to assess the work submitted by students.  I don't think of grades as being intended to motivate of punish, that's my job as a parent.  

 

This doesn’t mean I want a missed assignment to doom them.  I'd prefer they be allowed to make up those assignments personally, the goal is for them to learn the material.  I really don't care if they complete it sooner or later (within the school year). 

 

Also the article linked in the OP reads "if a student does no work on the task/assessment, the teacher will assign a zero."  I didn't realize that 50s were being given to work that isn't even turned in. 

 

In regards to "punishments": a result isn't a punishment.  Scoring a 25 on a test in which you answer 25 of 100 questions correctly isn't a punishment.  It's simply the result you were able to produce.  It's no more punitive than looking at the stop watch when a runner crosses the finish line.  Their time is their time.  Your test score, is your test score.  If that score fails to meet the standards for advancing to the next level, then the student fails.  This isn't a punishment, it's just not the desired result.   

 

 

Quote

Moreover, the use of a 100 point scale, as natural as it feels because most people had one growing up, is totally arbitrary. It is equally valid for a teacher to give a letter grade from A to F, and average using the point scale. On that scale, an A (4) and an F (0), average to a 2, which is a C. Few would argue against a teacher that does this (it even gives the F a zero!).

 

The same two assignments, with a 100 and a "given" 50, average to a 75. A C. EXACTLY the same grade.

 

A zero, though, makes an A (100) and an F (0) average out to a 50. It takes THREE perfect scores to raise that F to a C. Zeroes on the 100 point scale are devastating, in a way that most people don't actually realize, but trust me, a student does when he sees that even getting an A on the next assignment makes little difference.

In one a student can skip half the work and so long as the ace the remaining half they pass.  In the 0-100 system doing so would result in a failing grade.  This seems less like an arbitrary difference than an argument over what should result in a passing grade. 

 

Quote

If he or she is able to pass other assessments, that indicates learning. Why should a student who is learning fail? 

That's reasonable.  I can agree that a passing grade should be given to students that demonstrate sufficient understanding of the total material covered during the school year.  That would require subsequent tests to go back and cover the material they failed earlier in the year.  Is that what is happening? 

 

Quote

And really, a D or a C is what we're talking about. These are not Ivy bound students enjoying grade inflation. If these students go to college at all, they're going to an open acceptance community college. So where's the harm?

I remember seniors in high school, that graduated with my class, that could just barely read their only language.  They'd sound out words like elementary school kids and stumble when the hit a word like "thorough."  Sending kids out into the world with a diploma but without an actual high school education is the potential harm that concerns me.  I think this sets expectations for them that they can't meet.   

 

 

[tshile]

11 hours ago, techboy said:

I define "working" as achieving the desired goals.

 

If zeroes are intended to motivate students to complete their work, they don't, at least not more than a 50. As I already noted, grade motivated students are just as motivated by a 50 (they don't want bad grades), and students who are not grade motivated don't care. Zeroes in fact often reduce motivation.

 

If zeroes are intended to accurately assess learning, they don't work. If a student doesn't do the assignment, I have no idea what he or she has learned. A zero does not accurately assess learning. A 50 might be inaccurate too, but it is no less inaccurate than a zero, and it does not come with the other baggage.

 

Ok but what if, as destino says, the goal isn’t to motivate them to do the work but to assess where they are in the grand scheme of things; and that not willing/capable of completing work within the parameters is part of that assessment...

 

carrying that forward over time what are the potential negative side effects of a kid who skirts through every grade because those zeros now don’t cause them to be held back

 

or is that particular kid a lost cause/doomed either way? (And therefore is a different conversation with a different solution needed) and we’re really just discussing average student or slightly below that make a mistake and demotivates them and creates a bigger problem for an otherwise capable student?

 

im trying to square what you’ve said about the negative results if ‘punishment’ like policies - holding back, lower grades, how hard it is to overcome a zero, etc.... with a thought that maybe were pushing kids through the system more this way and that were not addressing the actual problem (that certain kids aren’t doing their work or putting any effort into studying/learning)

 

Is this doing a disservice to the C/D student when they go to community college? Kicking the can down the road?

[dfitzo53]

Those are absolutely fair questions and absolutely real problems. Traditional grading just doesn't work as an actual solution. I'm at work, so I don't have time to respond fully, but for now, just consider this.

 

Grades, as they are used right now in most places, are a single number or letter. People are asking that single symbol to somehow represent a combination of learning and effort based on subjective assessments carried out by one human being. On top of that, the number somehow has to function as a currency for admissions.

 

That is a system destined to fail somewhere. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm mostly with @Destino here...

 

Teachers shouldn't be the end-all-be-all when it comes to motivation. They are there to create and administer lesson plans and do their best to try to reach all the kids. But, a bad grade isn't a scare tactic, it's an assessment of a student's mastery of something. It's up to the student or parents/guardians to want to improve if they are struggling. 

 

And, I also believe traditional grades don't have to be the only factor. If a student sucks at taking tests but a teacher can determine some other way that he or she knows the material, then I think that teacher should be able to assign a different grade. For example, let's say a kid keeps getting a 50 on her tests but when the material is discussed with her she knows it all. I don't have any issue with the teacher deciding to give her a passing grade so she isn't "punished" for her testing skills. 

 

Like I've said previously, the goal should be to learn the material. Period. The grades are what they are and over-inflating them so that your transcript looks great seems counterproductive. Granted, my kids are 12 and 10 (7th and 5th) so I haven't parented in this new, hyper-competitive academic world yet.