EPTTeacher suspended for giving zeros - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On June 04 2012 11:23 micronesia wrote: sluggaslamoo he was responding to the posts in the thread more than to the event of the OP. No need to be so abrasive. I somehow missed that last line, I apologize. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On June 04 2012 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: Sorry to be rude but could you please explain the great reasoning to me? I do not follow it. It stems from the point about suicide rates, but in that section I find no proof confirming the correlation...which undermines the value of everything that follows. In general some sub-points might be valuable, but on the whole I think he fails to prove that giving zeros is, on the whole, counter productive. Most disturbing to that is that on the whole many believe high school & college are easier than they used to be. I highly doubt it, but then again it's all relative. Since the 1980s, and that congressional report whose name escapes me that showed the us was falling behind in education, there has been a big push to tighten academic standards. I did some browsing through online forums, and found a lot of people saying that subjects like calculus, and even algebra were not taught in schools in their day. Unscientific I know, but I was unable to locate a good study on the subject. Props to anyone who can find one. Since no child behind was instituted, I suspect standards have begun to slip, due to the extreme pressure on the school system to pass higher numbers of students. Leading to a restructuring of rules that might do harm than good. What I approved of in his post was that he managed to think beyond a black and white dichotomy of either helping students who are failing or rewarding those who excel. That has been the reflexive, knee jerk response of many of those responding to this thread, and it is those types of responses that I personally find counter productive. Simply supporting ever more rigorous standards without acknowledging the need for or possibility of a system which can bring out the best in all, or at least a greater proportion of students. Or equating school to a mere training facility for the workplace, without ever thinking about the crucial differences that make school a more alienating, coercive, restrictive, boring, and in some ways more difficult experience than working adulthood. That so many others would either fail or refuse to comprehend the flaws in the educational system, devoting all their focus instead to the flaws that students may have, struck me as ironic and disappointing. I do not Agree that school is driving students to suicide. It may well be easier now than it was ten years ago. What impressed me about that particular post was that he realized education is not simply a choice between hard and easy. It can be about better methods vs worse methods, based on results and fairness and irrespective of difficulty. Forcing all students to do the same exact rote work dictated from above may be "fair" in a sense, but it is certainly not the best way to teach. The teacher recognized this himself, and chose to teach in a way that he felt was best for his students. And many here applaud him for it, rather than simply dismissing him as an idiot or renegade, yet never take the next intellectual step, instead they just dismiss all students who do the same (refusing to do what was dictated) as lazy idiots. Perhaps if we were not so quick to dismiss such students as failures, and gave them support and leeway as many would like this teacher to receive, then they too could achieve surprising results. Doesn't that make for a more interesting discussion, a heathier discussion, than simply dismissing kids these days as spoiled and congratulating ones self for manning it up under tougher academic circumstances. That might be good for the ego, but it will never be good for education, or for the future. And that's what was impressive there, more people need to look beyond what they think is fair, and realize that a better system could be just as fair and still help motivate and uplift kids, just as the real world and its relative freedom tends to do. Before that can possibly happen though, there has to be an end to this view of students as lazy, irresponsible, unmotivated brats who deserve whatever their less-than-perfect educational system dishes out. Some are that bad, i would say most aren't. | ||
|
Jacmert
Canada1709 Posts
In this case, I will say that the "no-zero" policy doesn't seem to be one where you can not hand in things and face no consequences. It sounds like they will still fail the course if they don't hand in enough work. It's just that they're trying to follow up with students and make sure they eventually complete it, instead of letting them get a zero and move on. "If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said." Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Edmonton teacher suspended giving students zeros/6713603/story.html#ixzz1wmyWFWWY | ||
|
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
On June 04 2012 11:47 Jacmert wrote: it's important as a teacher to fall into line with your school's policies. You may not agree with it, but the principal or administrators or whatever have their reasons, and they're not stupid, either. Hahaha how I wish this was true. It should be true and I don't fault you for saying it, but it often isn't! | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On June 04 2012 08:29 micronesia wrote: If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate. The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea. It's not the same idea at all. If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out). Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid. | ||
|
FeedMe
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
I can understand people have a harder time than others but letting them not do work and get anything other than 0% is just silly. I work at a Autobody shop while I go to uni and if I don't make each car look 100% perfect by the time I am done I get in shit and if it keeps happening I would get my ass fired. I also have to do a stupid sheet at the end of each car that says a) I was the one who cleaned it b) do a check list of the things that need to cleaned. The sheet is stupid as fuck because why the fuck would you check that you didn't do something? But if I don't do it I get bitched at just like homework in high school. In real life you don't get partial pay cheques because you did a little bit and tried to pass that off or did nothing and you also have to do what your bosses wants no matter how dumb you may think it is. Your 18 when you finish High School your an adult at that point if you can't handle handing in a little bit easy homework that you can probably do in class your gonna have a rough life lol... I agree there needs to be more flexibility in homework marking but not doing assignments and receiving anything other than a 0% is fostering lazyness. I know I would have never done homework if I wasn't being graded on it. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
On June 04 2012 12:01 Bigtony wrote: It's not the same idea at all. If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out). Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid. After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation for how it isn't the same idea. I'm not saying what you are talking about is bad... just that I don't see what problem you have with what I said. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On June 04 2012 12:50 micronesia wrote: After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation for how it isn't the same idea. I'm not saying what you are talking about is bad... just that I don't see what problem you have with what I said. After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation how it is the same idea, but I do see evidence that you don't understand the policy. Randomly saying the word jellyfish is just fucking stupid and not even remotely relevant in a comparison to a reasonable but controversial policy. There's nothing ridiculous about this policy because in theory students can still fail and be forced to repeat classes, they just don't get "0s" along the way. The teacher is supposed to hunt them down and harass/encourage/whatever them until they do the work. Whether or not they actually do get failed in practice is another story, but that doesn't really matter in the end because I can hand out 0s all day long and most kids still wouldn't be able to fail my class. The reality is that this no 0 system isn't much different (in practice) from a system with 0s and in fact there is a very strong argument that it is much better for the students. Like I said before however, it places a massive burden on the teachers (where there shouldn't be, not without significant compensation or additional resources). That doesn’t mean students are coasting to graduation without doing the work, Schmidt said. “When assignments are given, the expectation is that they will be done,” he said. “Really, we’re actually pursuing students to try to get them to demonstrate what they know.” If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said. “So this is not, in any way, making life easier for kids. It is, in fact, continually finding ways for them to actually demonstrate the work and demonstrate their knowledge,” he said. “We believe it’s a fairer practise to clearly lay out to students and often to parents through their progress reports what they have been assessed on and what level of performance they’ve achieved.” Such feedback is much more motivating than a zero, Schmidt said. “Simply taking them off the hook with a zero that says they don’t have to do it anymore is actually not helping kids get to the learning.” | ||
|
SimoNostalgia
United States226 Posts
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha | ||
|
wunsun
Canada622 Posts
On June 04 2012 12:56 Bigtony wrote: After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation how it is the same idea, but I do see evidence that you don't understand the policy. Randomly saying the word jellyfish is just fucking stupid and not even remotely relevant in a comparison to a reasonable but controversial policy. There's nothing ridiculous about this policy because in theory students can still fail and be forced to repeat classes, they just don't get "0s" along the way. The teacher is supposed to hunt them down and harass/encourage/whatever them until they do the work. Whether or not they actually do get failed in practice is another story, but that doesn't really matter in the end because I can hand out 0s all day long and most kids still wouldn't be able to fail my class. The reality is that this no 0 system isn't much different (in practice) from a system with 0s and in fact there is a very strong argument that it is much better for the students. Like I said before however, it places a massive burden on the teachers (where there shouldn't be, not without significant compensation or additional resources). Your quote I believe came from the CBC article? What Schmidt is saying is basically useless information. The teacher that was assigning the zeros, basically did everything that Schmidt is saying. He pursued them to do it, gave them second chances, etc. However, if they did not use this options, and than they would receive a zero. As I stated earlier, how the is it fairer? If a students does all the assignments, and another did one or two assignments, they could have the same mark. Fair, eh? Lastly, how is giving a student a zero taking them off the hook? They're not off the hook. They don't have to do it anymore, but there is a repercussion. Maybe a better method can be used to motivate them, but I don't think the no zero method is it. Even if administrators believe that those feedback would encourage them, but I would see is that most students would just learn to game the system. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
It's just the rules. He could have disagreed with the rules, but he should, imo, follow it. | ||
|
MrDonkeyBong
Canada103 Posts
If a student deserves a zero, then that's what they get. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43771 Posts
On June 04 2012 13:22 SimoNostalgia wrote: Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it. My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant? You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too. | ||
|
a9arnn
United States1537 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
On June 04 2012 12:56 Bigtony wrote: After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation how it is the same idea, but I do see evidence that you don't understand the policy. Randomly saying the word jellyfish is just fucking stupid and not even remotely relevant in a comparison to a reasonable but controversial policy. There's nothing ridiculous about this policy because in theory students can still fail and be forced to repeat classes, they just don't get "0s" along the way. The teacher is supposed to hunt them down and harass/encourage/whatever them until they do the work. Whether or not they actually do get failed in practice is another story, but that doesn't really matter in the end because I can hand out 0s all day long and most kids still wouldn't be able to fail my class. The reality is that this no 0 system isn't much different (in practice) from a system with 0s and in fact there is a very strong argument that it is much better for the students. Like I said before however, it places a massive burden on the teachers (where there shouldn't be, not without significant compensation or additional resources). What I said in the post you quoted was not taking a stance on the school's policy; it was pointing out (to the person I originally quoted) that there is a time to defend the teacher, despite him violating the new rules of his school. Again, I did not say that this is necessarily the time when we should be defending the teacher. Getting upset at me doesn't change the fact that you simply misunderstood my point. | ||
|
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?" Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong? In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher. Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder). Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden). Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D... How is a teacher supposed to know how good you are in a certain subject if you don't hand in assignments? Also, just because someone does well on a test doesn't mean you can just skip everything else. School is not only about being good at a subject. It's also a place to somewhat learn dicipline. Which is learned by doing homework and actually attending. At a job, you can't just attend 60% of the time you're schedualed. You must attend the whole 100% or when the job is complete, depending on what your career is. Also, many jobs have "homework" if you will. Where you must prepare for the next day or throughout the week on projects and assignement. Again, it's all dependent on the job. So even if you're the best at a certain subject, you will still have to actually work and attend which is what working is for the most part. School is basically a place where you learn a wide range of things while preparing you for different jobs. If you will not attend school or do assignments, prepare for repercussions. Just like if you bearly showed up at work or didn't do the work asked of you. The system this school bored has for not completing assigments thing is for lazy people and shouldn't be incouraged. | ||
|
SimoNostalgia
United States226 Posts
On June 04 2012 13:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant? You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too. Well the "school" cop works for the school. Like a teacher works at a school. And he got fired like the teacher got suspended. That is how I find it relevant. Just a personal story. If a teacher has been teaching for 35 years or so, that is experience right there. A zero is a grade. And real life does require due dates. If a student fails to turn in an assignment on the date it is required then a zero is appropriate. I feel bad for the teacher, because I feel he was given wrong judgement by his board. Their system should change, not the teacher. And besides, the teacher let his students turn in their assignments late, so there really should not be any problem with the teacher, just the students who were lazy to not turn in their assignments. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On June 04 2012 14:49 nakedsurfer wrote: How is a teacher supposed to know how good you are in a certain subject if you don't hand in assignments? Also, just because someone does well on a test doesn't mean you can just skip everything else. School is not only about being good at a subject. It's also a place to somewhat learn dicipline. Which is learned by doing homework and actually attending. At a job, you can't just attend 60% of the time you're schedualed. You must attend the whole 100% or when the job is complete, depending on what your career is. Also, many jobs have "homework" if you will. Where you must prepare for the next day or throughout the week on projects and assignement. Again, it's all dependent on the job. So even if you're the best at a certain subject, you will still have to actually work and attend which is what working is for the most part. School is basically a place where you learn a wide range of things while preparing you for different jobs. If you will not attend school or do assignments, prepare for repercussions. Just like if you bearly showed up at work or didn't do the work asked of you. The system this school bored has for not completing assigments thing is for lazy people and shouldn't be incouraged. I also want to add that tests are a really bad indicator to show what you know. There's a reason portfolios are so valuable in employment, because there's plenty of people out there with top grades who make terrible employees. In my first interview the employer didn't even give a damn about what I did at uni, he wanted to see if I had anything to show for it. In the end we get educated so we can go out and work. Rarely do people remain as academics their whole life. A zero mark should be a wake up call for the student. I remember being shocked at how low my final score for year 12 was, and I ended up going back to school to fix it. This happened for many students at my school, ironically because of the hand-holding, my school ended up having some of the worst performing graduates. Many of them re-did year 12, but we could have done without that extra year and less hand holding to make us feel much better than we actually were. Come exam time we all thought we were going to ace the test, only problem was, now we were up against students other schools. | ||
| ||
