Kids Don’t Flunk; They Get Flunked

By Bill PagecloseAuthor: Bill Page Name: Bill Page
Site: http://www.teacherteacher.com/
About: About Bill Page ... Bill Page, a farm boy, graduated from a one-room school. He forged a career in the classroom teaching middle school “troublemakers.” For the past 26 years, in addition to his classroom duties, he has taught teachers across the nation to teach the lowest achieving students successfully with his proven premise, “Failure is the choice and fault of schools, not the students.” Bill Page is a classroom teacher. For 46 years, he has patrolled the halls, responded to the bells, and struggled with innovations. He has had his share of lunchroom duty, bus duty, and playground duty. For the past four years, Bill, who is now in his 50th year as a teacher, is also a full time writer. His book, At-Risk Students is available on Abebooks, Amazon, R.D. Dunn Publishing, and on Bill’s web site: http://www.teacherteacher.com/ In At-Risk Students, Page discusses problems facing failing students, “who can’t, don’t and won’t learn or cooperate.” “The solution,” he states, “is for teachers to recognize and accept student misbehavior as defense mechanisms used to hide embarrassment and incompetence, and to deal with causes rather than symptoms. By entering into a democratic, participatory relationship, where students assume responsibility for their own learning.” Through 30 vignettes, the book helps teachers see failing students through his eyes as a fellow teacher, whose classroom success with at-risk students made him a premier teacher-speaker in school districts across America.See Authors Posts (53)
 

www.BillPageTeacher.com

Kids don’t just flunk.  They flunk something.  And, the something they flunk is the material for which the teacher is responsible for teaching.  Failing students flunk what is taught, the way it is taught, by whom it is taught and with the methods selected, the activities offered, and the interaction provided. They flunk what is communicated or not communicated by the examples, and vocabulary used, by the learning experiences planned, and the practice assigned.  Students’ flunking is in relation to the time allocated for instruction, review, testing, and re-teaching.  Kids learn according to which kids are called on, the experiences provided, the discussions allowed, and the meaningful feedback offered.  Students fail what is taught, the way it is taught, and how the effects of the teaching is evaluated. Teachers’ decisions determine whether students are engaged and whether or not they learn the material.

Teachers Create Tests and Set Testing Procedures

Students don’t just fail to learn what is taught and how it is taught; they may also fail the tests that teachers create, with the type of questions chosen with the complexity or difficulty of a test, with the set time limit, with the testing procedures, test item wording, and the variety of testing conditions.  The relationship between students’ learning and their score on the test is always questionable. Teachers determine unilaterally the scoring and grading system. They choose whether “spelling counts,”(Including whether they taught the spelling or just counted it.), whether partial credit is permitted, whether all students were prepared adequately, whether the test requires memorization, comprehension, or analysis, whether the teacher taught all class members the same lessons or whether they differentiated and individualized.

Any testing condition affects the test score. If teachers offer “bonus” questions, extra credit, collaboration, use of notes, extra points, or if they announce that question number six will not count, it changes the grade.  If the teacher had taught the content better students would have learned it better. If s/he taught more they would have learned more.  If the teacher had taught each and every child, each and every one would have learned.  Separating teaching from learning is not possible, nor can the teaching-learning relationship be equally ascribed.  If teaching and testing decisions are made without student input, the learning and testing results are primarily the teacher’s responsibility.

Grades Are Subjective

What students learn is what teachers teach; and what students score is what teachers test.  Since teachers unilaterally determine the teaching strategies, the test, and the marking and scoring process, grades are subjective.  Tests reflect teacher decisions, emphasis, attitude, values, beliefs, and emotions.’ Even using an objective test doesn’t make the grades objective. Tests don’t test kids; teachers test kids because they determine the test items and conditions. Teachers determine what to test and how to score and mark answers. Essay questions, fill in the blanks, true-false, multiple choice, and matching questions all test different knowledge and depend on the choice of wording for validity and reliability.  No matter how “objective” the questions or how standardized the test items and conditions, the tests and grading are always subjective.

Teacher Controlled Variables

Grading and testing variables added to the averaging and combining of factors such as homework, participation, projects, group work, attendance, behavior, attitude, and cooperation make grading even more subjective.  If teachers average the scores at the semester, and a kid gets a “D;” the teacher could have probably changed that grade, just by having eliminated some of the test questions or adding some questions; or adding a test or taking away a test, taking off for a missing assignment, or giving 10% for class participation.  It would have made a difference in the grade if the class had been given a “practice” test; or an extra day of discussion and review, or study guides.  If the teacher had used hands-on activities, small cooperative groups to review or help one another; or used peer tutoring; or given more complete review, more examples, discussion or questioning exercises, it would have made a difference.

Reflecting on Some Grading Practices

Following are some questions by which teachers might reflect on some common grading criteria:  Suppose a kid on the semester report card, misses a “C” by seven-tenths of a point–seven-tenths of a point on a half a year’s work? Are teacher made tests sufficiently valid that a fraction of a point is the difference in failing and passing or getting a “C” or a “D”?  Would teachers be willing to submit their tests to authorities for evaluation of reliability, clarity, fairness, or validity before giving them?  Do the number of test items have to come out evenly or divisible by 10? Is the test designed to coincide with the class period?”  Is not following directions the same as not knowing—can the two be separated? Is there ever a reason to put a trick question on a test, give “bonus points”, or offer scores greater than 100 percent?  Why?

Suppose a kid misses the last third of the test because s/he ran out of time? Did the “F” mean s/he didn’t know the material, or that s/he read or worked too slowly? Have you ever thrown away a test of a kid who was talking or turning around in his/her seat? Was the “F” because s/he violated a rule or s/he didn’t know his math.  If the “F” was in math, will one who looks at the grade next year know that s/he knew the math, but didn’t know to follow correct testing procedures? Have you ever lowered a grade because the paper was turned in late? Does that grade represent his/her learning or his/her ability to get work done on time? Is the purpose of such marking for motivation, for discipline, or for what?

Have you ever returned marked test papers, and had a kid say, “But, Mr. Page, I knew number 5, I thought……”  “Too late?”  Too late for what?  If s/he can show he knows the answer but was confused by the question, why can’t s/he have credit for it?  The reason is usually because of our notion of fairness or of standardization.  Neither of which is appropriate because the concern should be for whether s/he has learned.  If s/he can show s/he knows it, s/he should get credit for it. Learning to work faster, follow procedures or turn in work on time are different lessons requiring different teaching and different grading criteria.  Are teachers obligated to teach the material or just test it? If s/he learns the material a week after the test, does that count?  When students don’t learn, is it the fault of the student or the teacher?  In all cases?

Purpose for Tests

Why can’t a kid take a test for him/herself to see if s/he knows the material? If s/he doesn’t know part of the material, s/he can study the missed material, retake the test to see what s/he still doesn’t know so s/he can study some more and take the test to show that s/he has learned it. Why can’t teachers give the test diagnostically to determine who has learned and who needs to be re-taught?  Finding that some students didn’t learn, teachers can use that information to re-teach. Tests can be used to determine how the teacher is doing; or to know which kids need to be taught differently.   Tests are better feedback for the teacher than for the students—teachers are better prepared to do something about a kid’s failure.

Once the professional goal focuses on making sure every kid learns, all of the elaborate grading procedures done in the name of competition, control, discipline, motivation, and fairness can be eliminated.  There are really only two options: 1.) The student has learned the material and gets an A, or 2.) S/he is in the process of learning and working toward proficiency.  Any grades and tests used in the learning process should be to help the student move toward mastery, not to grade or rank him/her on incomplete learning.  Grades should determine how the teacher is doing.  The time should be used for teaching, not grading.

With joy in sharing, Bill Page

Comments are welcomed and questions are answered: billpage@bellsouth.net

Visit: www.BillPageTeacher.com for “Zeros Are Always Unfair” a free download article with grading ideas and suggestions.  Teachers can also sign up for a free monthly newsletter.