Current Events > Teacher fired for giving students zeros on assignments not turned in

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well I can tell you what a teacher told me. (I work in schools) And is what I suspected ever since I was still in school 20 years ago.

You get kids that are lazy, don't care or simply unwilling to even try. So what do you do? Fail them? That just means you or another teacher is going to get stuck with the little bastard doing that same thing again next year. And admin/school board doesn't want kids dropping out because that reflects negatively on them/the district.
So what do you do? You pass then anyway. Because you're not left with another option.

And I'm pretty sure the political angle TC is going for on this is the exact opposite. Keep people stupid who then become dependent on government handouts and then keep voting for the people who support those handouts. Liberals.
---

EternalDivide posted...

And I'm pretty sure the political angle TC is going for on this is the exact opposite. Keep people stupid who then become dependent on government handouts and then keep voting for the people who support those handouts. Liberals.

No child left behind was a republican bill wasn't it
---

Every child is a special snowflake was a dem initiative right.

participation trophies were bad enough
now this ridiculous school policy makes it look like their students are so dumb they have to have such a stupid rule to survive academically...

might not be the intention, but it is the impression its sending
---

Not allowed to use red pens, not allowed to hand out zeros. America circa 2050 is going to be interesting.
---

So, if I miss a day of work, I should still expect half my pay for that day?
---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

First of all, the policy has pros and cons. But, it's important to look at what it is, what its effects are, and why it's implemented.

To start with, the idea isn't that you're getting a "0%", but that there's a higher minimum floor. An A is 100-90, a B is 89-80, C 79-70, D 69-60, F 59-50. By awarding 50% to incomplete work, you're not rewarding more, you're punishing less.

Why? It may seem crazy, but kids aren't adults and shouldn't necessarily be held to the same standards. Furthermore, school isn't work - you (or most adults) can choose their profession, children can't even choose what school they go to, let alone their subjects. If school was treated like work, it would look vastly different - probably more like trade schools.
And, again, it's important to understand that these aren't adults, but children. Children have little to no choice over their home life. The kids frequently not handing in assignments are likely the ones with serious issues - abuse, homelessness, poor access to food, and so on. If you're comparing homework to professional work, you're just completely off-track.

But, what is it meant to accomplish? By raising the floor, kids have a track to succeed should the be able to turn their situation around. Getting a 0% on a test could mean the student has no chance to get better than a F or D. But, getting a 50% on a test will let students raise their grades if they work for it. In the former case, children are actually incentivized to care less, since there's less they can do to show improvement (they'll act up more, pay less attention, etc.) It's like forfeiting in a game, why should they waste their time on something they've already lost. In the latter case, they have some incentive to continue trying.
In the end, your grade should represent what you've learned and mastered, not necessarily what you started with. By raising the floor, grades better reflect this goal.

Again, it's far from a perfect system. It certainly rewards people who just fail more than people who consistently try, but still fail. It also may take some work to understand higher average grades - but that doesn't matter from a top-down perspective, which is where the competition is.

This is bullshit, you shouldn't have wasted the time to type this horse shit.

They want partial credit because grants are based on performance. That is all. It is financially in the school's best interest that as few kids as possible fail. The superintendent wants clout and money, and stupid kids don't bring either. Teachers who play along are also treated better and promoted so there's that.
---

stone posted...

So, if I miss a day of work, I should still expect half my pay for that day?

I get paid in full for calling out, up to 21 days a year. If I just don't show up I still get paid, but only up to 3 days in a 6 month period
---

yusiko posted...

this is the world conservatives want
where children cant fail and thus dont gain a real education and thus are to uneducated to become liberals

This has to be the nonsensical sentence ever typed. LMAO
---

Makeveli_lives posted...

stone posted...

So, if I miss a day of work, I should still expect half my pay for that day?

I get paid in full for calling out, up to 21 days a year. If I just don't show up I still get paid, but only up to 3 days in a 6 month period

I get paid sick days (or personal days) but I meant it in a sarcastic way for those who don't have paid days off
---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Getting a 0% on a test could mean the student has no chance to get better than a F or D. But, getting a 50% on a test will let students raise their grades if they work for it. In the former case, children are actually incentivized to care less, since there's less they can do to show improvement (they'll act up more, pay less attention, etc.

this would only be true if they had put in effort and gotten a 0. for not turning in an assignment, there is one very obvious way to increase your score
---

Fony posted...

They want partial credit because grants are based on performance.

which grants are you talking about? the mechanisms of NCLB that harm schools that fail to perform are regulatory, not financial
---

I remember one time over Christmas break our math teacher gave us a shit ton of homework to spite us. I was sick the day it was due and that wreaked havoc on my GPA

And I was an honor roll student so it's not like this was a common occurrence
---

I guarantee she was doing things the admin didnt like, wanted her out, and this was the actually policy break that they used simply to nail her with.
---

Our grade scale was anything below 75% was an F.

We had a teacher that wouldnt give anything lower than a 50. Her rationale was if someone did poorly the first half, but honestly tried to turn around and be a good student theyd have a fighting chance to climb out of the hole.
---

CapnMuffin posted...

I guarantee she was doing things the admin didnt like, wanted her out, and this was the actually policy break that they used simply to nail her with.

She was new to the school thus on probation. Her disagreeing with this policy is why they booted her.
---

Makeveli_lives posted...

stone posted...

So, if I miss a day of work, I should still expect half my pay for that day?

I get paid in full for calling out, up to 21 days a year. If I just don't show up I still get paid, but only up to 3 days in a 6 month period

They should get partial credit for up to 21 days a year
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Her Sept. 14 termination letter doesnt cite a specific reason, only stating she was contracted as a teacher on a probation period, and that she can be dismissed without cause.

Key thing is here

I 79% garantee that she was actually fired for a multitude of other reasons that all stack up but are minor.

You get this a lot. "I was fired for being 4 mintues late!" actually you were fired for being kinda shit but being late was the straw that broke the camels back.
---

It teaches kids that you never have to work hard because there is always a safety net.
---

If I was still in my probationary period, and refused to do my job the way I was instructed to...

And also made it clear that the reason was because I disagreed with how my employer wants me to do it...

I would be fired so fucking fast.
---