This chapter brings up some very controversial topics. I think that is the case with any new idea. When we turn everything on its head, there are those who are afraid of what will happen even when it is better. I’m not sure how I feel about putting a 60 or 50 in the gradebook instead of a 0 for work that was not turned in. I understand the mathematical argument that failing should be only a range of 10 points like all the other letter grades, instead of 0. At the same time, work that is not turned in fails to show mastery of 100% of the material covered. This means that if you average it into the total grade it is still an accurate assessment of the demonstrated mastery. That does not mean the student has no mastery of the subject, only that he has not demonstrated it. I like the suggestion of giving two grades, one for the grade including the missing work and another showing their average mastery aside from the missing work. MI classrooms are all about finding ways for students to show mastery in a multitude of ways besides formal assessments. It may be possible for the student to demonstrate mastery of the material in a different way in order to get partial credit. The rest of the chapter dealt with issues surrounding how to grade students that have special circumstances, either special education or GT students. The controversy is on whether to grade these students so that the grade accurately reflects the mastery of the curriculum or the progress the student has made toward mastery or the additional mastery above and beyond the curriculum mastered by GT students. It is clear that the current grading and reporting procedures now in place are totally inadequate for grading in a differentiated classroom. Some other format is needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment