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?