Re: anon and ny/5

(17) Comments

Like

Share

Report

So here we are in the same state with the same standards
and this is how the 1-4 system is somewhat applied in my
school at our grade level (5th)
95-100 = 4
85-94 = 3+
70-84 = 3
65-69 = 3-
60-64 = 2+
55-59 = 2-
54 or below = 1
I think what has happened is that we were all given this
standards based rating system with no standardized way of
applying it, so a child in your school may not be meeting
the standards, then come to my school and be meeting them.
I don't know about you, but the instructions we were given
on how to use this system were sparce and conflicting, and
we had to then figure it out on our own. We (my grade
level team) ended up going more with a college GPA rating
system, but honestly -- I don't even think it's consistent
from teacher to teacher or grade level to grade level. I
have noticed that some teachers consider a 60% average a
low 3 while others consider a 70 average to be a high 2;
and -- like your school, our students then go on to middle
school and receive numeric averages. The administrations'
answers to this are to just use the same 1-4 rubric for
everything you do -- which is all well and good for
projects and writing assignments, but what about all these
assessments we are required to give that have numeric
scores? Unless we completely do away with any kind of
numeric percentages -- there needs to be some kind of chart
that converts percents to the 1-4 system. I realize the
rationale is to look at the child more holistically -- do
they demonstrate (through observation) the skills in class,
but not on assessments, or vice versa? I still think it's a
mess, because in the long run, no matter where you end up,
you have to be able to pass tests within a certain numeric
cut off point (civil service, college entrance exams,
regents, etc.)
One last thought -- if anyone were to actually ask teachers
how to improve education, we would be able to solve
problems such as these. It seems as though people who have
never been in a classroom sit in offices up at the state
level and randomly determine what they are improvements and
so much of it is illogical. Examples -- the 1-4 rating
system, the NYS pre-march/post-march math standards and
Reading First.

On 3/27/09, teach4/NY wrote:
> I found this thread very interesting. I am also in NY
> and stuck with this 1-
> 4 system! The wording on the report card is much like
> anon's. But when grades are equated to the rubric
> basically we use a 98 or higher average to be 4, 70 -
> 97 to a 3, a 60 - 69 a 2, and below 60 a 1.
>
> Our report card that has about 50 subskills that we
> rate - and the parent barely glance at any of it during
> conferences - they skim it and really aren't the least
> concerned as long as there are no 1s. It clearly does
> not give them any kind of picture of how their children
> are doing!
>
> Then our students leave us and go to 5 in MS where they
> receive a numeric average! The parents go balistic, and
> give the 5th teachers lots of grieve when children are
> getting 70s or even at times 80s because 'they were
> doing fine before!'
>
> As you can see this a 'sore point' with me.
>
> Anon what is the outcome of the parents expecting
> weekend tutoring? I would hope that the principle has
> explained that this is impossible.

Posts on this thread, including this one