s/o: How organized were classes in your high school?

[scoutingmom]

Ok, since ridiculas extremes are being used, I will agree that my best might not have been 100% my best by a pure definition. Rather, I did the work I felt was required to a) know the topic well (the exact amount depending at least somewhat on my interests and aptitudes), b) to get the mark desired on each individual assignment - generally aiming for 100% on non-subjective subjects and close to that otherwise c) possibly other things I am not thinking of.

 

And yes, I did not do my best work for the tacher who was prejudiced against the students of my religion. He got work done but no extra effort. There was no point, he would give me bad grades anyways, it was not a subject I enjoyed, and I had already done most of it in the previous year's course. Which is why the departmental exam mark was about 25% higher than the teacher given mark.

 

I did not need more information than what I said was given... the general course marking (this percent for exams, this amount for homework) and then the information on the assignment (say.... prepare a 5 page essay on MacBeth).

 

So, if your definition of "your best" is rewritting every assignment 10 times, then, no, I didn't do YOUR best. But I did every assignment in such a manner to get the highest mark I could and to learn.

 

But it sounds like some on here would like permission to pick and choose what to do. Well, feel free. But don't excuse yourself by saying that students that are competing for the top marks do that as well. As those awards are often determined by a very small fraction of a percent, those kids don't throw away marks.

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[EmseB]

Ok, since ridiculas extremes are being used, I will agree that my best might not have been 100% my best by a pure definition. Rather, I did the work I felt was required to a) know the topic well (the exact amount depending at least somewhat on my interests and aptitudes), b) to get the mark desired on each individual assignment - generally aiming for 100% on non-subjective subjects and close to that otherwise c) possibly other things I am not thinking of.

 

And yes, I did not do my best work for the tacher who was prejudiced against the students of my religion. He got work done but no extra effort. There was no point, he would give me bad grades anyways, it was not a subject I enjoyed, and I had already done most of it in the previous year's course. Which is why the departmental exam mark was about 25% higher than the teacher given mark.

 

I did not need more information than what I said was given... the general course marking (this percent for exams, this amount for homework) and then the information on the assignment (say.... prepare a 5 page essay on MacBeth).

 

So, if your definition of "your best" is rewritting every assignment 10 times, then, no, I didn't do YOUR best. But I did every assignment in such a manner to get the highest mark I could and to learn.

 

But it sounds like some on here would like permission to pick and choose what to do. Well, feel free. But don't excuse yourself by saying that students that are competing for the top marks do that as well. As those awards are often determined by a very small fraction of a percent, those kids don't throw away marks.

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

So, when someone says they did "their best", to me, that means they put in all the effort they possibly could.  It doesn't have anything to do with grades, in my mind.  Is that an extreme definition? Best is superlative, right?

 

Here's why I think some of us are talking about different things: If we're just talking about getting 100% or getting and A, that's an entirely different thing than doing one's best on anything. I wrote plenty of papers that simply regurgitated my teacher's stance on a certain topic so that I could get 100% or get a good grade. It was not my best work, but it got me a good grade.

 

And getting good grades in high school without really applying myself or retaining much is what bred cynicism; it did not inspire me to do my best.  Obviously people have different formative experiences in high school, but I thought the definition of doing one's best was pretty universal regardless of circumstances.  But, then again, I don't think picking and choosing (aka prioritizing limited time and resources) is a bad thing either, so I was not writing with the intent of being allowed permission (huh?) to do that.

[Jean in Newcastle]

To me, the issue is work ethic. I was taught a work ethic that does what is required. All assignments are required. So I did all assignments. So picking and choosing assignments doesn't fit my work ethic. I'm not judging someone who did it differently way back in high school but did feel surprised at the concept. All my peers did all assignments.

 

I was taught to try to get good grades. Good grades meant that I demonstrated mastery of a subject on a test or an argument on an essay. So getting the best grades under that paradigm meant doing my best academically in my academic worldview.

 

Do I think that promotes real learning? Not really. That's one of the reasons I homeschooled my kids. But I seem to have retained enough knowledge and skills to go through college and graduate school with honors so I don't think that the way I did it was a total bust. I have a rounded education.

 

Do I know everything? Of course not! And I never will. Do I know everything that I want to know? Nope. I'm learning every single day. Do I have a good work ethic? My former employers seemed to think so.

 

The reason the "picking and choosing " thing even came up was as part of an argument for detailed syllabi in high school. I didn't have syllabi in high school (and no amount of arguing that I should have is going to change that simple fact) but even in college and grad school I didn't pick and choose assignments. The prof assigned those readings or papers for a reason. I did them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lllll]

nm 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by _ -_-

[Lang Syne Boardie]

To me, the issue is work ethic. I was taught a work ethic that does what is required. All assignments are required. So I did all assignments. So picking and choosing assignments doesn't fit my work ethic. I'm not judging someone who did it differently way back in high school but did feel surprised at the concept. All my peers did all assignments.

 

I was taught to try to get good grades. Good grades meant that I demonstrated mastery of a subject on a test or an argument on an essay. So getting the best grades under that paradigm meant doing my best academically in my academic worldview.

 

Do I think that promotes real learning? Not really. That's one of the reasons I homeschooled my kids. But I seem to have retained enough knowledge and skills to go through college and graduate school with honors so I don't think that the way I did it was a total bust. I have a rounded education.

 

Do I know everything? Of course not! And I never will. Do I know everything that I want to know? Nope. I'm learning every single day. Do I have a good work ethic? My former employers seemed to think so.

 

The reason the "picking and choosing " thing even came up was as part of an argument for detailed syllabi in high school. I didn't have syllabi in high school (and no amount of arguing that I should have is going to change that simple fact) but even in college and grad school I didn't pick and choose assignments. The prof assigned those readings or papers for a reason. I did them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Public schooled students who don't always do their best on everything the school arbitrarily assigns or values, frequently still have a very good work ethic. Especially those who are trying to figure out how to balance survival, part-time job, helping with younger siblings, and keeping up adequate grades. It's not laziness or poor work ethic to want to run some C/BA on tasks, when a young person is overburdened and over-scheduled. A syllabus helps.

 

The nose to the grindstone kids who are neurotypical and able to focus on endless tedious tasks that are not even too far beneath their ability (especially in the absence of survival issues) do not have a better work ethic than the kid who is doing it his own way, near the top of the class in spite of not being a model student, while holding down multiple jobs.

 

This will be my last post on the thread, I'm going to be out of town for the weekend. But I just have to end with one final reiteration that public school success, that is, the ability to be a model student as defined by school standards of whatever decade a student goes to school (it's a moving target), is not the only measure of a person's character.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm not judging people who figured out how to work the system a different way. I'm simply explaining how I was taught to do things many years ago. It's a way that resonates with me personally and it is what I have taught my children.

 

I don't doubt that others have a fine work ethic but doing all that is assigned is still part of the fabric of my work ethic. It just is. And I don't see why anyone should be offended by that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EmseB]

I will say that trying to live up to the model student standard of doing every assignment brought me to literal tears and eventually led me to some kind of a...burnout?  I don't know.  But it was almost like I physically couldn't make myself sit and do things that I already knew or were inane busywork.  I don't know how to describe it.  Perhaps persevering to overcome that feeling would have served me better later in life, but the academic game (as someone put it) was not conducive to learning perseverance.  I could skip work and still get good grades.  I should fudge my opinions to mold to that of the teacher and pull out a good grade. Outside of high school that doesn't work so well for me in a lot of areas.

 

I don't raise my kids to work that way, but I also don't have them in public schools, partly because of what it taught me about "work ethic".

 

Anyway, I don't think a syllabus or lack thereof is really so much the issue.  I see a syllabus as the mark of an organized and fair teacher.  I see a grading rubric as a way to keep people from complaining that a teacher is playing favorites or grading subjectively.  All those things do is set expectations for the class and tell the students what those expectations are.  Meeting them, or not, is always going to be up to an individual.  Some people do prioritize their school work effort to go into the big assignments, for whatever reason, not necessarily relating to poor work ethic or character.

[EmseB]

I don't know if it was a different time or culture, but the idea that we could pick and choose assignments based on whether they were "worth it" is inconceivable to me. And I don't know anyone in my class back then who didn't do their best on all assignments. That didn't mean that we all got perfect grades but we did what we could.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

That concept is bizarre to me too. I did all of the assignments because that's what good students do.

 

 

This is what I was thinking. I never thought "which of these assignments can I flake out on"  I did my best on every assignment.

 

 

Jean, the offense was taken because of these types of comments.  That people who didn't do every single assignment were flakes, were bad students, that it was so bizarre or inconceivable, etc. I didn't pull every single quote.  People have invoked the Bible, and grandma's old sayings, etc.  It absolutely was portrayed as some type of character flaw of the newfangled generation that someone wouldn't do every single school assignment.  The post I initially responded to (I think) tried to make the assertion that kids used to do all their work in previous generations and it was just unheard of not to.  I think that's just a silly idea.  It may be a cultural thing some places, but I know my parents didn't do all their homework.  I know my grandparents didn't.  My high school ran the whole gamut of smart kids to troublemakers to overacheivers to average students, etc, etc.  There was not one monoculture of everyone doing every single thing.  Did some skate because they were lazy?  I'm sure it happened!  Did some just prioritize to keep plates spinning?  Absolutely.  Did some do everything?  Sure!  I don't know how, but they did.

 

I'm pretty conservative, I raise my boys to work hard at school.  To use a real-life example, we use a pre-made curriculum.  But we don't check every single box.  If I tried to, I would go INSANE.  I make judgements and prioritize so they can see how to do that well. Sometimes, my kids come and ask, "Is this necessary?"  Sometimes they have to push through and do the hard work.  Sometimes, I look at the assignment and say, "You know, this isn't really worth our time, you know this stuff," or, "Let's change this up so you don't have to write quite this much because I've noticed you've done a lot of hard work today already."  There is some kind of grace there available to them along with doing hard things and doing them well.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, the offense was taken because of these types of comments.  That people who didn't do every single assignment were flakes, were bad students, that it was so bizarre or inconceivable, etc. I didn't pull every single quote.  People have invoked the Bible, and grandma's old sayings, etc.  It absolutely was portrayed as some type of character flaw of the newfangled generation that someone wouldn't do every single school assignment.  The post I initially responded to (I think) tried to make the assertion that kids used to do all their work in previous generations and it was just unheard of not to.  I think that's just a silly idea.  It may be a cultural thing some places, but I know my parents didn't do all their homework.  I know my grandparents didn't.  My high school ran the whole gamut of smart kids to troublemakers to overacheivers to average students, etc, etc.  There was not one monoculture of everyone doing every single thing.  Did some skate because they were lazy?  I'm sure it happened!  Did some just prioritize to keep plates spinning?  Absolutely.  Did some do everything?  Sure!  I don't know how, but they did.

 

I'm pretty conservative, I raise my boys to work hard at school.  To use a real-life example, we use a pre-made curriculum.  But we don't check every single box.  If I tried to, I would go INSANE.  I make judgements and prioritize so they can see how to do that well. Sometimes, my kids come and ask, "Is this necessary?"  Sometimes they have to push through and do the hard work.  Sometimes, I look at the assignment and say, "You know, this isn't really worth our time, you know this stuff," or, "Let's change this up so you don't have to write quite this much because I've noticed you've done a lot of hard work today already."  There is some kind of grace there available to them along with doing hard things and doing them well.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

I can't speak to other people's quotes, so I will only speak to mine.  I tried to soften what I said by saying that perhaps it was due to a different time or culture.  But until Farrar (I think it was her) said that she used syllabi to pick and choose assignments, I had never heard of people doing that.  Perhaps people did it and didn't tell me.  After all, I wasn't going around trying to police or monitor other people's study habits.  I just know that my close friends did all the assignments because I saw them doing it in study hall or later in the dorms.  Because I went to boarding school I did see others doing their homework in a way that people who went home and did it would not be privy to.  So I was expressing surprise because it surprised me.  And it was a foreign concept to me.  I did not lambast anyone for having poor character. 

 

People are a sum total of a lot of different components that go into their character and worldview.  I don't think that "good character" is some kind of a monolithic thing that you can only reach in a certain way.  I do think that certain things are good.  Like a work ethic that puts a proper priority on work.  I phrase it that way because a "good work ethic" out of balance can lead to things like being a workaholic and I don't think that is a good thing. 

 

I don't think that knowing how to take some efficient shortcuts is antithetical to having a good work ethic.  It can be a good strategy.  I have learned how to take some over the years.  Choosing assignments was just not one that I used.  As I said before, I was taught that teachers chose assignments for good reasons and so missing them was not efficient in my mind because then you would miss out on their purpose.  But 90% of the time I had excellent teachers.  Except for one year in 9th grade, I did not go to an American public school and that 9th grade year they put me all in Senior level classes except for Algebra which I bombed because that one teacher sucked.  (That's a run on sentence but I am going to take a shortcut and just leave it.)  I hear a refrain of "avoiding busywork" in those who skipped assignments.  Perhaps I had no need because none of the assignments I had were busywork.  Even my horrible 9th grade algebra teacher had good assignments - he just didn't teach enough math so that you could do them. 

 

[PeachyDoodle]

Jean, the offense was taken because of these types of comments.  That people who didn't do every single assignment were flakes, were bad students, that it was so bizarre or inconceivable, etc. I didn't pull every single quote.  People have invoked the Bible, and grandma's old sayings, etc.  It absolutely was portrayed as some type of character flaw of the newfangled generation that someone wouldn't do every single school assignment.  The post I initially responded to (I think) tried to make the assertion that kids used to do all their work in previous generations and it was just unheard of not to.  I think that's just a silly idea.  It may be a cultural thing some places, but I know my parents didn't do all their homework.  I know my grandparents didn't.  My high school ran the whole gamut of smart kids to troublemakers to overacheivers to average students, etc, etc.  There was not one monoculture of everyone doing every single thing.  Did some skate because they were lazy?  I'm sure it happened!  Did some just prioritize to keep plates spinning?  Absolutely.  Did some do everything?  Sure!  I don't know how, but they did.

 

I'm pretty conservative, I raise my boys to work hard at school.  To use a real-life example, we use a pre-made curriculum.  But we don't check every single box.  If I tried to, I would go INSANE.  I make judgements and prioritize so they can see how to do that well. Sometimes, my kids come and ask, "Is this necessary?"  Sometimes they have to push through and do the hard work.  Sometimes, I look at the assignment and say, "You know, this isn't really worth our time, you know this stuff," or, "Let's change this up so you don't have to write quite this much because I've noticed you've done a lot of hard work today already."  There is some kind of grace there available to them along with doing hard things and doing them well.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

FTR, my use of my grandmother's saying was NOT in any context that implied that "people who didn't do every single assignment were flakes." It had nothing to do with any "newfangled generational character flaw." It was explicitly illustrative of the fact that in MY PERSONAL family culture, completing all the assignments made by the teacher (or parent or other authority, or even by myself, if it was something I'd deemed worth my time and energy) was considered proper.

 

Of course, as the teacher (and therefore the person with the greater knowledge of the subject who sees the big picture) you pick and choose assignments for your students based on their needs. So do I. Presumably, so did my teachers growing up. This was the underlying presumption in my family: The teacher had chosen the assignments for a reason; therefore, I needed to complete them. I said I was surprised by the number of people who would use the syllabus to "prioritize" which assignments to complete because I always worked off the assumption that the teacher(s) had already done the prioritizing for me.

 

Obviously there are different circumstances for different students; I was fortunate to grow up in an environment where school was my primary focus, and I was taught to treat it as such. That was MY experience. Saying that I was raised to think that doing every assignment was necessary is no more or less offensive than implying that since I did every assignment I must think I'm better than those who didn't or couldn't.

[Bluegoat]

But then we're back to the original topic. If the teachers don't tell you the context of the assignment, how do you know which assignments are just for processing information and which ones are meant to be huge, culminating works?

 

If the teacher actually teaches, I think that's going to accomplish that and more.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Also- in every single class I took, you got a zero if you didn't do the assignment. It was not possible to get a good grade if you had a zero on any assignments. You couldn't guarantee a 100% or even an A on an assignment but you could guarantee not getting a zero by doing the assignment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brehon]

I am slightly younger than Jean and attended PS K-12 in two different areas: a large, mediocre PS system in a major US city and a somewhat better PS system (for HS specifically) in a smaller, more rural area.

 

My experiences in both systems mirror hers. My friends and I did the assignments we were assigned. And we generally did our personal best work given the time, culture, and any number of other variables which I have forgotten in the intervening decades. So, yes, that usually meant working hard on assignments to meet the given requirements.

 

As I said I didn't have syllabi in high school and have no frame of reference for picking and choosing assignments based on perceived worth. Neither did I pick and choose assignments from any of my university classes - and all of them had syllabi as I recall.

Edited May 18, 2017 by brehon

[Bluegoat]

Also- in every single class I took, you got a zero if you didn't do the assignment. It was not possible to get a good grade if you had a zero on any assignments. You couldn't guarantee a 100% or even an A on an assignment but you could guarantee not getting a zero by doing the assignment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In some schools I was in, any work not done was an incomplete, and you could not pass until it was done.

[EmseB]

Of course, as the teacher (and therefore the person with the greater knowledge of the subject who sees the big picture) you pick and choose assignments for your students based on their needs. So do I. Presumably, so did my teachers growing up. This was the underlying presumption in my family: The teacher had chosen the assignments for a reason; therefore, I needed to complete them. I said I was surprised by the number of people who would use the syllabus to "prioritize" which assignments to complete because I always worked off the assumption that the teacher(s) had already done the prioritizing for me.

I guess I did not, by and large, have the same experience as 1 kid out of 30 in my public school classes. I found assignments prioritized by what the teacher could feasibly grade on a large scale, what would help us do well on standardized tests, what the majority of kids needed a lot of repetition to learn, what would keep us busy while they were dealing with other students, etc.

 

If my teachers were able to make the same priorities in regards to my personal education as I do for my one 4th grader or one 2nd grader I think I would have had a much different experience with how I viewed the work that was assigned.

 

I don't trust that teachers are (in general) prioritizing assignments the way you describe because that was rarely, if ever, done for me in school. Perhaps that is why there is such disparity in what were talking about?

Edited May 18, 2017 by EmseB

[EmseB]

Also- in every single class I took, you got a zero if you didn't do the assignment. It was not possible to get a good grade if you had a zero on any assignments. You couldn't guarantee a 100% or even an A on an assignment but you could guarantee not getting a zero by doing the assignment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our daily homework was worth far less than tests or papers. You could not do quite a bit of homework, ace a test, and still get probably a B in the class. In a math class the nightly homework (30 saxon problems) would be worth 10 points. A test was worth 100 points. In English class, a quiz on the nightly reading would be 10 points, but a big paper would be 100 or 150 points.

[Word Nerd]

. 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Word Nerd

[Zinnia]

I read the "picking and choosing" not as skipping assignments, but as choosing some assignments to dash off and not lose sleep over.

 

I have a 4th grader in public school. he is given rubrics (not syllabi, though), and most assignments come with a point value. Instead of weighting assignments at the end by %, they assign them points. So a test is worth 30 points, homework 2, a pop quiz 7. Stuff like that. I have told him this very year, "hey, this project is good enough. You have spent 12 hours on it, it is 9pm, and it's time to be done. It is only worth 10 points, and it's not worth it to stay up all night (or spend 4 more evenings or whatever) on this project. It does not have to be over the top perfect." And maybe that teaches poor work ethic. But it also fights the dirty monster of perfectionism that plagues so many of us. It's definitely a balancing act.

[PeachyDoodle]

I guess I did not, by and large, have the same experience as 1 kid out of 30 in my public school classes. I found assignments prioritized by what the teacher could feasibly grade on a large scale, what would help us do well on standardized tests, what the majority of kids needed a lot of repetition to learn, what would keep us busy while they were dealing with other students, etc.

 

If my teachers were able to make the same priorities in regards to my personal education as I do for my one 4th grader or one 2nd grader I think I would have had a much different experience with how I viewed the work that was assigned.

 

I don't trust that teachers are (in general) prioritizing assignments the way you describe because that was rarely, if ever, done for me in school. Perhaps that is why there is such disparity in what were talking about?

 

I don't trust it either, anymore. In fact, I know the opposite to be true from my dd's public school experience.

 

I do wonder if the trend towards "teaching to the test" and quantifying student outcomes does mean that fewer teachers are given the freedom to prioritize assignments in the way they used to. If, in fact, they ever did. It may be that I only assumed that because it's what I was taught (again, family culture coming into play here). I am not sure, but I do think most of them did made an effort to do so. Assuming that they did, having been raised in a rural, conservative district that was perhaps slower to adopt newer educational methods may explain why my experience is closer to what Jean has described, despite the fact that I am younger than she.

 

This is one of the reasons I started this thread -- because so much of what I was hearing on the other thread didn't resonate with my personal experience and I wondered if I was an outlier.

 

[Paige]

We had a syllabus in every class as far as I can recall in HS. In middle school we had something similar to a syllabus but not so detailed. The HS syllabus would include course expectations, how grades are calculated, rules, and major assignments. It would include readings we were supposed to do, and more often than not you had to sign an honor code with it about cheating and stuff.

 

The teacher could adjust the syllabus throughout the year and maybe change dates or cross something off, but for the most part it was organized. I went to a large public high school with a good reputation in a college town.

 

 

[scoutingmom]

In some schools I was in, any work not done was an incomplete, and you could not pass until it was done.

The post secondary program I was in required every assignment, test, and lab to be completed to at least an 80% mark (the student would get their original mark, whether a 0 or a 75 used to calculate the final mark, but absolutely no course was passed until everything was complete with an 80% mark or better.)

 

Because I was used to doing everything, this was not an issue.

 

A few weeks before term end, a list would go up using ID numbers with the list of incomplete assignments/labs/etc. Yes, it was generally a long list, and students would scoff at the idea that it would be enforced. Then the list would get updated every couple of days, and the students with one or two things would drop off the list because they finished those. Then the people who had 3 or 4 things would do those and drop off the list. And then the mad scramble would start.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[scoutingmom]

 

 

So, when someone says they did "their best", to me, that means they put in all the effort they possibly could. It doesn't have anything to do with grades, in my mind. Is that an extreme definition? Best is superlative, right?

 

Here's why I think some of us are talking about different things: If we're just talking about getting 100% or getting and A, that's an entirely different thing than doing one's best on anything. I wrote plenty of papers that simply regurgitated my teacher's stance on a certain topic so that I could get 100% or get a good grade. It was not my best work, but it got me a good grade.

 

And getting good grades in high school without really applying myself or retaining much is what bred cynicism; it did not inspire me to do my best. Obviously people have different formative experiences in high school, but I thought the definition of doing one's best was pretty universal regardless of circumstances. But, then again, I don't think picking and choosing (aka prioritizing limited time and resources) is a bad thing either, so I was not writing with the intent of being allowed permission (huh?) to do that.

We obviously come from a different culture or something. Your definition of doing ones best would mean that if an assignment wax due 24 hours from now that to do ones best you would spend all 24 hours doing it because if you spent 23 hours and 59 minutes on it... well, you could have done more.

 

I already said that doing my best includes thoughts about grades as well as a goal for learning. The learning being more important than the grade. I did extra to learn things that had no grade associated with it at all... so no, not just doing what I could to get grades. I like to learn.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[DawnM]

I've also taught public school before. I can't imagine not having the flexibility to change assignments after the first day of school. Like, you couldn't decide that the class wasn't prepared to do one project and assign a different one several months later? You couldn't decide the class needed to skip homework one week, but needed an extra review on another in the spring, more than half a year after the syllabus?

 

There's got to be a good middle ground between giving rubrics, informing kids of where they stand, and staying flexible enough to actually teach and not just be a... static video course or something.

 

I currently teach English to ESL students.  That means that because I have an English credential, I can give the ESL kids their English credit.  

 

There is almost no way to not be completely flexible in my class.  I have students who have been in the country 5 years and kids who just arrived in the country in February.  They are all in the same class.   A rubric would not work.  There is a huge book that tells me to find where the kids are in their English skills and grade them on their abilities, not on the actual work performed.  

 

The huge issue I am running into is that those long term ESL students are there because they fail the ESL test on purpose to stay with their friends.  That means that they COULD go to reg. English classes, but the test results (given once per year) show they can stay in ESL.  This test does not affect their grades at all, and they know that.  I have tried my darnedest to get admin to move those kids along (other schools in the district do!) but our admin insists they should stay in ESL.  

 

It is a bit of a nightmare as those kids are bored and cause behavior issues.  There is only so much "differentiated instruction" I can offer.  What they NEED is a teacher who can focus on really explaining the content at their level and move them along.  I can't do that while I am still teaching, "My name is.....What is your name?" to the other half of the class.

 

And sometimes it takes a while to figure out exactly where everyone's level should be, so a syllabus would be awful.  I peg Jorge at a level "B" based on his ESL scores, only to find out he is really at a level E and then have to fight with him to explain that I now expect far more work out of him, while he gets mad and argues, etc......

 

It is far easier to not have something in writing and just say, "Ok, today I will have you doing X, Y, and Z" instead of "A,B,and C" 

 

The only thing I CAN do is to explain how grades are weighted.   AND they can see their grades when they log onto powerschool.  It weights it for me and spits out their current grade.

Edited May 19, 2017 by DawnM