There has been lots of feedback from lots of sources on the new DISD grade policy, which was clarified somewhat yesterday by DISD and its spokesman Jon Dahlander. To read the clarifications, as issued by DISD, click here. To read information posted on DISD’s website about the grading policy, click here.
DISD’s stance: This whole thing has been much ado about nothing, plenty of the reporting (specifically on the part of the DMN) was incorrect or misleading, and a lot of the negative commentary on the policy was based on misinformation.
Now, as to whether the DMN twisted off on this deal or not, I have my doubts about that allegation after looking again at the DMN stories, as well as DISD’s original and clarified documents.. The real problem seems to have been created by unexpected publication of the policy in the News on Friday; DISD apparently was planning to complete dissemination of the policy a few days later to some teachers who were unfamiliar with the particulars of the policy, and when the DMN story popped up, those not in-the-know reacted with surprise, fueling voluminous blog commentary here and elsewhere.
The early disclosure by the News, apparently the result of a copy of the policy finding its way into the hands of a DMN reporter through an unofficial school source, messed up DISD’s intended rollout, and the proverbial stuff hit the fan before DISD had obtained buy-in from its troops. You can’t blame the DMN for printing the information; that’s the kind of thing that always drives readership, sometimes protects the public interest, and it’s basically what big-time media outlets do — find information people want to read (that others don’t always want disclosed) and make it public (think John Edwards, just to name one). If you want to point blame here, blame DISD for allowing the information to become public before all of its staff had been fully briefed, but that’s the kind of thing that happens in a big bureaucracy.
Bottom line: After comparing the original paperwork with the revised information, the policy is pretty much as it was described earlier on Back Talk. Throughout the district under terms of the new policy, students must be given the opportunity to retake a "major" test (as definted by teachers) within five school days of the failing grade or no later than 10 days after the original testing date — that’s a change from the original interpretation by some of "unlimited retesting any time a student failed", which DISD says was never the plan.
There appears to be some discrepancy about whether a teacher must call a parent before giving a 6th-12th grader a failing grade; DISD now says that’s not required for teachers but it is encouraged. Truthfully, this was one part of the plan I liked — a parent should hear immediately from a teacher if a student if failing a test or a class. That’s the kind of knowledge that an engaged parent can use to re-engage the student immediately, rather than depending on the student to self-report (fat chance) or waiting for the report card to show up (too late to take action then).
Another interesting component: There appear to be district-wide limits to how much homework students in 9th-12th grades can be assigned — 10 hours per week for students not taking AP courses, 20 hours per week for students taking multiple AP courses. And there are component grading breakdowns that appear to require teachers — and I presume this to be all teachers — to grading component percentages that limit, for example, the percentage of a grade that can be attributed to "projects". That’s the kind of thing, if I’m reading it correctly on the documents posted in DISD’s website, that could cramp the style of some AP teachers who are grade-dependent on projects vs. tests and homework.
And the ultimate concern: Are we "babying" students by letting them have multiple chances (tests, homework, projects) to improve their grades after initial poor performance, since that seems to go against "real world" principles and winds up making the students weaker future employees? I heard DISD Supt. Michael Hinojosa speak at Monday’s Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce meeting, and his interpretation was interesting. He asked if anyone in the audience had ever received a "second chance" from their employer. Of course, there was a lot of nodding. He then asked if anyone had ever been fired for a mistake on the job, and without pausing, pointed out that while it does happen from time to time, most employers are willing to offer a valued employee a second or third chance. His point is that simply making a mistake (failing a test) shouldn’t necessarily be grounds for the death penalty, particularly if we’re in a position to help someone (a student) by giving them another shot.
I’m not a big believer in the re-testing theory, even one as limited as giving students the ability to retake a "major" one as defined by teachers; deadlines and precision need to have some importance among students, just as they do in the real world. And there are plenty of extra-credit ways to allow a student to bring a grade back up, provided the student actually cares.
This whole thing, though, proves anotherfar-more-important point: DISD is just too big and too unwieldy to ever be a smoothly operating machine. I like Hinojosa and think he’s doing the best-possible job, but DISD needs to be chopped into four or five smaller "districts" if we’re ever going to really tailor the education students are receiving to the needs of various students in various neighborhoods.
We’d all be better off if that idea was the topic we were debating than whether retesting is going to destroy Western civilization as we know it.
