Making the Grade

Cowgrit and I went to the end-of-quarter parent-teacher meeting with Calfgrit7’s teacher. He’s doing well in school, and this, of course, makes us very proud. But trying to make sense of the grading system makes us [read: “me”] confused.

His teacher showed and explained to us the grading forms she uses (as set down by the state board):

On math, the grades are A, B, C, D — C and D are good; A is bad. It was hard for me to get excited for all his Cs and Ds.

Other subjects apparently have points and stars. At one point, she said, “He’s at a four points on these two, so I can give him three stars.” Huh? “He got three-plus on these two, and a three on this, so he’ll get a three overall.” Huh?

In kindergarten and 1st grade, the grade scale was 1, 2, 3, 3+, and 4. 1 = does not “get” the skill; 2 = below grade level for the skill; 3 = knows the skill (at grade level); 3+ = knows and is able to apply the skill (a little above grade expectations); 4 = able to apply skills to expanded situations (above grade level), or something like this. It was different than the old standard letter grades I was used to, but it made sense once explained.

After we understood the new grading system, we could easily follow it on his report cards. He was always getting 3s, 3+s, and 4s. His 2nd grade teacher says we’ll still be seeing the 1-4 scale on his report card, but she wanted us to see the workings behind the numbers. That’s great, and I appreciate her showing it.

But it’s like the people behind setting the grading system for one skill (say, math) don’t talk or organize with the people setting the system for another skill (say, reading). One is rated as a letter (with A being bad, and D being good — directly opposed to the traditional scale), another is rated with stars, and another is rated with numbers, etc. What the hell?

Think of the poor teachers who have to work with these varied systems. The education bureaucracy is insane — they must have gone to public schools.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com