Denton ISD's New Grading Policy: Wrong, and NOT excess Individualism

Today, I heard a blurb on the radio about a local school district adopting a new grading policy that grants students two privileges:

1. The ability to redo term papers for a higher grade, and
2. The prerogative to turn in assignments late without penalty.

I found out from a quick "google" this district is Denton, and the new story is reaction to a controversial policy that was launched before the start of the '14-'15 academic year. Dallas Observer did clarify that #2 is, thankfully, not without limit, as campuses can curtail the grace period so it doesn't turn into a semester-wide indulgence.

I share the parents' concerns that this policy sends the wrong message. Hopefully, it is also the concern of many high school students who are in danger of being cheated out of their free opportunity to be held accountable so they can learn lessons before the toll of repaid tuition and lost earnings is exacted by life. Saying students initially respond with "smiles" doesn't mean, reflectively and privately, many don't probably agree with parents and (presumably) taxpayers that this is a bad idea. It implies the trend in higher education of having to double-back and reteach through remedial classes what should have been learned in secondary English and Math courses will now extend to basic study habits. We'll all pay twice, and our next generation can't afford that redundancy.

Especially since it does not have the added value the district proposes: individuality. The article quotes a district spokesperson, Mario Zavala, as follows:

"Everything is very individualistic in regards to the campus, and per student. You work with every student differently to allow them to reach their potential, ...We think overall, it's going back to the students being accountable. At the same time the students that need a little extra time to master the concepts will have that time."

If this spokesperson speaks for the district, then DISD has a mistaken idea of what individualism means. F.A. Hayek dedicated an article to this subject, but for present purposes I would just like to point out that accountability and individuality are not in conflict. Quite the contrary, the belief here is collectivist. First, because many young pupils won't rebound from the signal of a bad grade, especially those that unfortunately don't have the support network at home, lets just let them all off the hook. If the goal is individual treatment, let parents opt their kids into this new policy, and the parents who are thankful their children must meet standards the first time can refrain from doing so.

Second, with the public pressure to push everyone down the college track, lets keep those transcripts pristine with grades dirtied with test/retest threats to validity. Further, lets make sure colleges face an inability to distinguish those A's earned by turning in homework and researching the term paper from the A's earned only from rewriting the C paper and flinging a bunch of assignments at the teacher at the last minute. (Sidenote: Expect teachers to grade more easily if they're inundated.) If Tim can turn in August homework in December, he may not merely have learned the material but actually mastered it, but should his record not reflect he had months of extra time? As noted Economist Walter E. Williams would tell you, you're doing him no favor by not making that distinction, because if he's admitted on a false basis to a University for which he is ill-suited, odds are that he won't finish. That individual may waste time he could have spent more prosperously at a less-demanding University, a junior college, or otherwise gaining job skills.

Lastly, late penalties respect - and induce - individual judgments. I will certainly own that over my lifetime, I've submitted quite a few late papers; however, I almost always expected to pay for the extra time with grade points. Lets say you produce your paper, and you think you have your basic B that you can shove in the submission pile on time. If you take the extra day or two to make it better, and your perception is right, you may get it to A quality, but why should that time be free? I suspect some think, "well, if the penalties take it to a B, why bother?" This is short-term thinking! If you are committed to quality and improvement, you bother not just for the grade, but to improve your skill.

DISD assumes tailoring education means tailoring the signal, but the value of the signal - like with prices - is to communicate factual data. "Relative to the kids who turned in an A on time, your tardy paper of equal quality is a B." Like stable prices, the student should expect this penalty, but can still make the individual judgment call, asking "can I make this mediocre paper better?" Giving the student a B doesn't rob them of the learning they received, it just presents them with the cost, from which s/he can also learn.

Of course, if we're going to treat signals as arbitrary, then I agree, let them take forever, and let the laggards get the same transcripts. Then, DISD kids can go work at McDonald's and demand $15/hour wages. After all, if the manager ministers to them, they may indeed have skill worth that someday, so let them have it now, right?

And now we're done? Solidarity & Connection BEYOND Relatability*

This week, a friend of mine authored a blog post (Crazy Cass Life: and now we're done?) on a personal problem in which I saw my own fear both reflected and refracted onto a different theme. In a nutshell, while dealing with the life-altering biological obstacle of infertility, some quality friendships were born in the fires of empathy, but when medicine and prayer helped her overcome that hurdle, she was met with estrangement from those about whom she still cared a great deal. I often worry people won't be able to identify with me because I am not currently working, and also that as friends' lives take on more dimensions, they'll drift from me. For simplicity, I'll even say they might "outgrow" me.

We're all going to have many experiences, some of which will be very similar to others and some different. Relatability can be a great bonding agent, bringing people together over understanding and support. Unfortunately, as this piece that I found when searching for verification that yes, unbeknownst to my spell-check, it is a word, relatability can also be fertile ground for narcissism. For any of us that want to form more than ephemeral bonds, the extent to which our relationships can't stretch beyond present circumstances is a concern; especially, when these circumstances are ones we know that we wish to change.

I must confess to a bit of ironic self-indulgence in that I'm knocking our egocentric times while finding a good deal of value in Alexis' piece out of - you guessed it - relatability. I haven't found my economic niche yet, but don't want to be left on the other side of the "line" from those who are further along in their careers anymore than she wants her victory of "crossing over" from infertile to motherhood to separate her from her friends. Whether we wish them to or not, both motherhood and our professional status are not usually treated as mere attributes, but as defining qualities of our lives.

By Lionel Bartel*

Indeed, that's why social groups tend to define themselves around them. I know that even among all who work, lines crop up. The Friends episode in which Dr. Ross Gellar doesn't want to sit with his friend Joey in the cafeteria comes to mind. Alexis has the refrain of a Québecois car bumper - "I remember" - that the basis of their bond, its root, is still there, even if their lives' branches aren't identical. It's important to keep that in mind, but I think it's also important to remember, even if our relatability diminishes, we are still the same person.

Growth is not the same as total change, and it's not as if the core of special people in our lives has no transcendental character! Or is that the problem? If I may veer off briefly into the metaphysical, when we let erstwhile cherished connections languish because the in-group dynamics have dissipated, are we not raising the experience above the soul?

The New Yorker article to which I linked above also distinguishes Identification from Relatability, which I found useful. Beyond the in-group distinctions made above, perhaps nowhere do we see the in-group|out-group division have as vehemently a limiting character as when the experience is fused with identity. Being a professional, and, sometimes, becoming a mother, are both at least malleble, the product of choices. So, too, is that the case with another fault line with which friendships must contend: married|single. What about race and gender, though?

Even if imperfectly, I would submit that these divisions can be bridged if the goal is to cross with empathy and (partial) understanding. I could definitely identify with a challenge that an article on LinkedIn was suggested is faced more by women interviewees: being able to bring more confidence to bear when discussing something external about which I am passionate versus being under the microscope myself. I'd much rather present on a researched topic to a small group, even knowing they're evaluating me, than I would sit across from 1-3 people directly scrutinizing me. Now you bring in all the baggage from the past, and my being a white male may seem an inescapable barrier, and it seems to me relatability - by demanding too proximate a positioning of the subjects on multiple planes of our experience - actually stands in the way of the beneficial goal of transcending those barriers and learning from one another.

If we can't even do it where we have choice, Lord help us!


* By Lionel Bartel (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

New "Sunset Blend" brew at 1418 Coffeehouse

Today, I got to try a new variety of java available at Fourteen Eighteen Coffeehouse, which gives me an occasion to return to the Blog that I haven't visited this month so that I can share a description. It's a tasty brew that shiny, light citrus of the panama, costa rica, or - to a lesser extent - the Honduras, with the Earthen body of an Ethiopian. The light overtones come out more as the coffee cools, with the textured body dominating initially. Though it finishes bright, the aptly-named bean's dimensionality lingers, which is welcome in a cup with low to midrange acidity. You will also enjoy the smooth mouthfeel, which hearty cups like the Nicaragua and Ethiopian varieties often subvert. Like a sunset, the light manages to remain. Enjoy!