Post by Alex ClarkPost by Brian LockeWell I know here in Texas they changed what constituted passing
sometime in the early 80s
..
Post by Alex ClarkPost by Brian LockeBefore that a C was 70%-79% and D was 60%-69%
If the gradng system in Canada is as youdescribe it, I would have to
say that it seems to be a bit lax. . . .
When the people who decide how to give the number grades know the
formula for converting these to letter grades, then they will usually
try to calibrate assignments and exams so that the resulting
distribution of number grades will lead to the intended distribution
I assume that you are talking about "bell-curving" the grades? The
practice of adjusting the students' marks from what they actually got on
the text/exam to some other number such that you get the "expected"
number of failures, OK-but-not-spectaculars, amazingly goods, and so
forth?
In Ontario, IIRC, bell-curving the marks in elementary & high school is
illegal and is supposed to result in the teacher losing their job. The
students' grades are supposed to accurately show how well they did and
not to "prove" that the teacher is giving tests and assignments of the
proper level of difficulty for that grade.
When you have only 30 students in a class it is entirely possible for
there to be more smarties or dummies than in the population at large
such that the marks will not give a "proper" bell curve distribution.
Anyone with any sense knows that artificially adjusting students' marks
is doing them a great disservice. Bell-curving is only done by a
dishonest, unethical educator trying to hide their own incompetence and
inability to teach the course at a level appropriate for the mixture of
student abilities in the individual class. Just because the distibution
of marks wil a large enough sample of students will fall into a bell
curve doesn't mean that an individual class should do so as well. And by
a large enough sample I mean a several thousand students taking the
course, like one would find in an entire school district in an urban
area.
Post by Alex Clarkof letter grades. So when an F is below 70% in Texas and below 50% in
Canada, the number grades in Texas will be inflated relative to the
number grades in Canada so that the letter grades will come out
approximately the same.
This "inflation" will only happen if the artificial adjustments of
bell-curving are made.
Further more, that "inflation" will only be relevant if the curricula in
both places have sufficiently similar criteria. IOW, a Canadian student
who gets 51% (barely a pass) has put in a comparable amount of effort
and done work of a comparable quality to the Texan student receiving 71%
(barely a pass in Texas). Same for a Ontarian getting 71% (barely a B
there) and a Texan getting 81% (barely a B there).
If that "inflation" you are talking about is what actually is being done
in Texas then they have not actually increased standards but only
laxened the marking such that a student who was getting 60% before is
now getting 70% with thee same level of effort. (Note: I know nothing
about Texan education standards - I am only poinitng out what becomes
true if Alex Clark's inflation statement is correct.)
Post by Alex ClarkAfter all, it's not as if the students in Texas and Canada were
getting their number grades by the same criteria.
Except in today's mobile world those grades should be comparable.
University admissions people and potential employers should be able to
look at the submitted grades, knowing that a 75% from <ThisPlace> is the
same as a 75% from <ThatPlace>, without having to do obscure
calculations to adjust all the numbers to the same standard.
--
Cory Albrecht
http://cory.doesntexist.com/
"Star Trekkin' across the universe!
Always going forward 'cause we can't find reverse!"