Do relaxed homework policies help or hurt children?

[Watchmen]

Homework is not essential to substantive learning, IMO. However, it is vital to procedural learning (i.e. study habits). I cannot comprehend how a student can be successful in college or graduate school without learning the study habits that homework teaches.

 

[Panda]

What do you see as the role for a test? Is it a challenge to be bested, or is it a measurement of the knowledge that the student has?

In the first case, I'd agree that it's counter-productive to gloss over failures, but in terms of student "quality assurance", if they know the stuff, they know it, regardless of the process they took to learn it. If the point of the math test at the end of one unit is to make sure that the kids know what they'll need to understand the next unit, then a pass after ten failures fulfils the test's purpose just as much as a pass on the first try.

A test is designed to show what knowledge the child has learned. In most courses there are time restraints so if the child can not keep up then they should not be in the class. There isn't enough time to retest the child ten times with the quality of everyone else's education falling. The logical conclusion is that the child who can not keep up with the course is removed.

I think the big deal is that there is harm to the students associated with being held back. Personally, I don't think that just letting every student breeze by is the best way to deal with this, though.

Well then the student should have worked harder, their actions (or lack of) have consequences so they had better get used to dealing with them.

I think that you can get the message through to the child that his or her actions have consequences by other means. For example, if a child is just a bit below the normal standard for one grade, passing them but with the requirement that they go through some sort of remedial program or special help (e.g. they work through their lunch getting back up to speed on the stuff they need help with) can be more effective than flat-out failing them.

Tests have pass marks for a reason, even if you fail by one mark it is still a fail and I think the student should be failed end of story.

I think that failing a child is still an option, but it's an option of last resort, and not something to be used lightly.

I think if a child can not keep up they should not be in the class.

 

[Watchmen]

Here are some articles about the benefits of homework:

Clorox Wipes - FamilyEducation.com

The Benefits of Homework

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A test is designed to show what knowledge the child has learned. In most courses there are time restraints so if the child can not keep up then they should not be in the class. There isn't enough time to retest the child ten times with the quality of everyone else's education falling. The logical conclusion is that the child who can not keep up with the course is removed.

... or is helped to keep up, which solves the problem and is much more beneficial to the child.

Well then the student should have worked harder, their actions (or lack of) have consequences so they had better get used to dealing with them.

And there are more consequences available than just "pass" or "fail". Telling a kid that he loses having lunch hour with his friends because he has to spend the time taking remedial classes is a consequence, too.

Tests have pass marks for a reason, even if you fail by one mark it is still a fail and I think the student should be failed end of story.

If you fail by one mark, you have failed to reach what is really an arbitrary point. Is a child who gets 52% on a history quiz really any better prepared for life or even the next grade than a child who gets 49%? I'd say probably not, and I don't have a problem with schools taking this into account.

Failing by 5% is not the same thing as failing by 45%, which is not the same thing as skipping school and missing the test altogether. They're problems of different degrees with different root causes; it makes no sense to treat them all the same.

I think if a child can not keep up they should not be in the class.

Or the ability to keep up should be fostered in the child. Like I said, keeping a kid back should be a last resort.

 

[McBell]

Do you think these are helpful for the students in the long run?

Lets just keep lowering the standards till no one can fail.

 

[Panda]

... or is helped to keep up, which solves the problem and is much more beneficial to the child.

If helping the child keep up damages the education of the rest of the class then this isn't an option.

And there are more consequences available than just "pass" or "fail". Telling a kid that he loses having lunch hour with his friends because he has to spend the time taking remedial classes is a consequence, too.

This doesn't work in real life so it shouldn't work in schools.

If you fail by one mark, you have failed to reach what is really an arbitrary point. Is a child who gets 52% on a history quiz really any better prepared for life or even the next grade than a child who gets 49%? I'd say probably not, and I don't have a problem with schools taking this into account.

Depends if you want to study history or not. Anyway the child should be used to have goals set for him, and consequences for not achieving them.

Failing by 5% is not the same thing as failing by 45%, which is not the same thing as skipping school and missing the test altogether. They're problems of different degrees with different root causes; it makes no sense to treat them all the same.

Yes it does, the child still failed to reach the goal they were set. By how much is irrelevant they still failed.

Or the ability to keep up should be fostered in the child. Like I said, keeping a kid back should be a last resort.

I should be, but never at the expense of others in the class.

 

[DallasApple]

TAKS!!!!!!

MY children..and our whole family is TORTURED BY TAKS!!! and the TEACHERS are MISERABLE!!

Talk about "guns"..They are UNDER the GUN!

Children have to be put on ANTI anxiety drugs from the pressure of the TAKS !!!..Its pass or fail no matter if you have the credits needed to graduate your grade..If I had an extra 15,000 a year I would YANK my 7th grader out RIGHT now and have him private schooled...

Love

Dallas

 

[blackout]

TAKS!!!!!!

MY children..and our whole family is TORTURED BY TAKS!!! and the TEACHERS are MISERABLE!!

Talk about "guns"..They are UNDER the GUN!

Children have to be put on ANTI anxiety drugs from the pressure of the TAKS !!!..Its pass or fail no matter if you have the credits needed to graduate your grade..If I had an extra 15,000 a year I would YANK my 7th grader out RIGHT now and have him private schooled...

Love

Dallas

Taks? or Tasks.

The whole "task" nightmare I understand.
But TAKS maybe stands for something I don't know.?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If helping the child keep up damages the education of the rest of the class then this isn't an option.

Why do you assume that helping one child must damage the education of the others?

This doesn't work in real life so it shouldn't work in schools.

Sure it does. I've never worked for an employer yet who fires their employees the first time they do something wrong.

For example, in my line of work, projects will sometimes go over time, over budget or both. It would be very rare for a project manager or staff member to get shown the door for that; typically, the project manager would sit down with his own manager/VP/whatever and figure out what went wrong and how to fix it for next time. Firing only enters into the picture for repeated shortcomings or major failures.

Depends if you want to study history or not. Anyway the child should be used to have goals set for him, and consequences for not achieving them.

But my point is that a student who gets 52% in history will not be materially better prepared for his or her next history course than the student who got 49%.

Yes it does, the child still failed to reach the goal they were set. By how much is irrelevant they still failed.

I think it's very relevant. It's like the difference between the light switch being off, the bulb being burnt out and the power grid being shut off... all of them have the same end result, but the way to fix each is very different.

A kid who would do well with the right attitude is very different from one who has fundamental problems with the material. If the objective of the education system is to actually educate students, then we should take the students' differences into account, including the factors that lead to unsatisfactory performance.

I should be, but never at the expense of others in the class.

But in the black-and-white world of pass/fail and nothing else, if the other students still pass, there's no expense, right?

 

[Panda]

Why do you assume that helping one child must damage the education of the others?

If the teacher has to spend extra time on one person everyone else's education suffers. This is why I support smaller class sizes and classroom assistants. In my first and second year of high school I had to get extra help with my spelling, this was done by the classroom assistants, (I don't know if you have them in the states) and other members of the extra learning staff. There was a whole department dedicated to this sort of thing, they went into classes to help teachers with specific children.

Sure it does. I've never worked for an employer yet who fires their employees the first time they do something wrong.

True but your example was for one person who passed after the tenth time and the first. I think everyone should get a second chance and under extreme circumstances a third chance. If it work you kept getting the same thing wrong you wouldn't last.

For example, in my line of work, projects will sometimes go over time, over budget or both. It would be very rare for a project manager or staff member to get shown the door for that; typically, the project manager would sit down with his own manager/VP/whatever and figure out what went wrong and how to fix it for next time. Firing only enters into the picture for repeated shortcomings or major failures.

So say you are a project manager and all your projects go over budget and are late you wouldn't be fired?

But my point is that a student who gets 52% in history will not be materially better prepared for his or her next history course than the student who got 49%.

Well yes they will, generally the courses link together and the person who got a higher history mark is more likely to do better again next time.

I think it's very relevant. It's like the difference between the light switch being off, the bulb being burnt out and the power grid being shut off... all of them have the same end result, but the way to fix each is very different.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. Like I said earlier I think a second chance is reasonable. If after that they still haven't passed then they don't have the ability and/or the commitment to pass.

A kid who would do well with the right attitude is very different from one who has fundamental problems with the material. If the objective of the education system is to actually educate students, then we should take the students' differences into account, including the factors that lead to unsatisfactory performance.

True some kids don't have the right attitude and that is why they fail, other's simply can't do it. However say my courses last year it was quite simple, if you couldn't keep up tough luck this is the speed we need to go at the finish the course.

But in the black-and-white world of pass/fail and nothing else, if the other students still pass, there's no expense, right?

It shouldn't damage the education of anyone else. To me it isn't a black and white world of pass and fail. It is A, B, C, D and Fail.

 

[blackout]

Test grades to me are not a marker of "pass" or "fail".
They can be indicative of what one is able to understand, remember,
complete quickly (under a time limit), cram (and then forget).
They can be indicative of distractions in personal/home life,
or simply personal interest (or lack of interest) in the subject matter.

Tests basically measure WHO IS A GOOD STUDENT.
And to an extent... sometimes more, sometimes less...
who, to date (or simply on the date of the test),
"knows" (or knows how to do) what, or not.

And they give a teacher with many students,
a sense of who is capable of doing well on said required test.
(on said required date of the test)

Sometimes a test says more...
something substantial about a person's knowledge/ability of a particular subject,
sometimes not.

Often times it just says that a student is a good test taker.
And those who aren't, are relegated the red stamp of "fail"ure.
Excellent for self esteem and personal encouragement.

Still I understand, in a large class room, how is a teacher to gague
what each student has absorbed?
When a student is a consistent "failure" though in a regular school setting,
perhaps one might consider that it is the SCHOOL CONSTRUCT
setting up that particular young person for failure.
Perhaps it is the educational format itself that is "failing" the child.
(in the other sense of the word. umm, In both senses actually)

There should be alternative systems of education
for alternative learning types.
This to me is a total no brainer.
And as well, for those who know where their talents and interests lie
at a younger age. IMHO.

 

[Wandered Off]

The whole "task" nightmare I understand.
But TAKS maybe stands for something I don't know.?

Hi Vi. The TAKS is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. It's a standardized test that the state requires students to pass and penalizes schools, administrators, and teachers when too many fail. Kind of a separate issue from the homework rules, but the havoc wrought by having teachers teach "to the test" out of fear instead of thoroughly teaching basic material is yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

 

[blackout]

Hi Vi. The TAKS is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. It's a standardized test that the state requires students to pass and penalizes schools, administrators, and teachers when too many fail. Kind of a separate issue from the homework rules, but the havoc wrought by having teachers teach "to the test" out of fear instead of thoroughly teaching basic material is yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Ahhhh, yet another standardized test to teach to.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

 

[McBell]

Hi Vi. The TAKS is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. It's a standardized test that the state requires students to pass and penalizes schools, administrators, and teachers when too many fail. Kind of a separate issue from the homework rules, but the havoc wrought by having teachers teach "to the test" out of fear instead of thoroughly teaching basic material is yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Sounds like the same thing as Indiana's Proficiency Tests

 

[Gentoo]

Hi Vi. The TAKS is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. It's a standardized test that the state requires students to pass and penalizes schools, administrators, and teachers when too many fail. Kind of a separate issue from the homework rules, but the havoc wrought by having teachers teach "to the test" out of fear instead of thoroughly teaching basic material is yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Reminds me of the MCAS of Massachusetts... except that our sophomores have to pass it in order to graduate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the teacher has to spend extra time on one person everyone else's education suffers.

Teachers don't spend their entire time in front of the whole class lecturing. The day is split up into different types of time. For example, when the class is working in small groups or when a bunch of students are working out math problems on the board, that's an opportunity for the teacher to deal with one or two students individually. And even if none of those times are available, the teacher can still work with a student on recess while his or her friends are outside playing.

This is why I support smaller class sizes and classroom assistants. In my first and second year of high school I had to get extra help with my spelling, this was done by the classroom assistants, (I don't know if you have them in the states) and other members of the extra learning staff. There was a whole department dedicated to this sort of thing, they went into classes to help teachers with specific children.

But there's still a tradeoff even in that: whether you're talking about time, money, specialized staff or classroom space, devoting resources to one group of students means that those resources aren't available to the rest of the student body. What else could your school have paid for if it didn't have classroom assistants and extra learning staff? Smaller class sizes? Newer textbooks? A better computer lab?

But personally, I think these sorts of tradeoffs are okay. Different students will have different needs, and each will require different resources to educate.

True but your example was for one person who passed after the tenth time and the first. I think everyone should get a second chance and under extreme circumstances a third chance. If it work you kept getting the same thing wrong you wouldn't last.

Depends on the circumstance. Say you're applying for a job that requires you to be certified in first aid: all that matters is the first aid certification itself. In the interview, you'll probably be asked whether you have your first aid; you might even be asked to show your certificate... but it would be very unlikely that the interviewer would ask you how many times you failed the course before you passed. All she cares about is that you know first aid now, not how you came to know it.

So say you are a project manager and all your projects go over budget and are late you wouldn't be fired?

Depends. If it was happening because of repeated failures on the part of the PM, probably. If it was happening because the estimators and proposal writers kept giving the PM unrealistic budgets and schedules, the blame would probably go to them and not the PM.

Well yes they will, generally the courses link together and the person who got a higher history mark is more likely to do better again next time.

I don't think you can be sure of that.

For example, take me: I got 8% (that's right, 8%) in grade 8 history. I hated my teacher and just decided to do no work at all in that class (note: I wasn't held back because at my school, you would pass or fail the year as a whole and to be held back, you needed to fail three courses). The next year, my first year of high school with new material and a new teacher, I did much better... better than some of my friends who scraped by with a bare pass the year before.

It's a mistake to apply population averages to individual people. On average, you may be right, but the actual individual results fall along a distribution, and not just at a discrete point. Some students will do better after failure. Some will do worse. Some students will do worse after just scraping by with their credit. The way we handle students should take into account the fact that they're all different people.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. Like I said earlier I think a second chance is reasonable. If after that they still haven't passed then they don't have the ability and/or the commitment to pass.

I think it is.

Students fail classes for all sorts of reasons. If we are actually trying to educate kids, why would we treat all of these ones the same?

- the otherwise smart student who constantly skips school and isn't around to learn the material.
- the student who tries really hard, but just can't grasp the basic concepts.
- the student who would do okay if he applied himself a bit more.

If you look only at the end result, and only in terms of whether the student failed or not, then they all look the same... just as the unlit bulb looks the same in all three cases... but if your goal is to actually help the students to learn, why would you treat them the same?

True some kids don't have the right attitude and that is why they fail, other's simply can't do it. However say my courses last year it was quite simple, if you couldn't keep up tough luck this is the speed we need to go at the finish the course.

Why do you think the course would need to slow down?

It shouldn't damage the education of anyone else. To me it isn't a black and white world of pass and fail. It is A, B, C, D and Fail.

It seems inconsistent to me to realize that students who pass do so with a range of acheivement while at the same time ignoring this fact for students who fail. 49% is not equal to 0%.

 

[DallasApple]

Hi Vi. The TAKS is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. It's a standardized test that the state requires students to pass and penalizes schools, administrators, and teachers when too many fail. Kind of a separate issue from the homework rules, but the havoc wrought by having teachers teach "to the test" out of fear instead of thoroughly teaching basic material is yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Not only that but regardless that my senior this year had passed all his subjects.In fact had enough credits to graduate in January ....He almost did not get to graduate..He had to take the TAKS math test four times..So hafter 13 years of school(I count kindergarten)...he was going to be denied a diploma and to graduate with his peers over the math TAKS...He was under so much stress it was pathetic.So were me and my husband..It was maddening..My son PASSED his highschool required math..Why in the hell should he have been held back???

For the year between 3rd and 4th if you dont pass you are not promoted..8th to 9th..and 11th to 12th..Adn it dosnt not matter what your grade point average is..

My son is gifted in many ways..But he SUCKS at math...He can speak 3 different languages(including Mandarin Chinese)...he's brilliant in history....but math he has struggled in since he was a tot...

Something needs to change..

Love

Dallas

 

[Panda]

Teachers don't spend their entire time in front of the whole class lecturing. The day is split up into different types of time. For example, when the class is working in small groups or when a bunch of students are working out math problems on the board, that's an opportunity for the teacher to deal with one or two students individually. And even if none of those times are available, the teacher can still work with a student on recess while his or her friends are outside playing.

In the later years of high school the majority of class time is note taking and having things explained to you, very little time is spent doing the work you have to do that on your own. In maths out of the 6 hours I got a week I would be lucky if one hour was spent doing work, in physics it was closer to 30mins. The teacher wouldn't have time to constantly go over stuff for people. If we were off it was our responsibility to catch up with the notes, if we still weren't to sure we would have to go see the teacher during a period when both of us was free.

But there's still a tradeoff even in that: whether you're talking about time, money, specialized staff or classroom space, devoting resources to one group of students means that those resources aren't available to the rest of the student body. What else could your school have paid for if it didn't have classroom assistants and extra learning staff? Smaller class sizes? Newer textbooks? A better computer lab?

But personally, I think these sorts of tradeoffs are okay. Different students will have different needs, and each will require different resources to educate.

It is a better trade off than keeping them in the class, as a side note all my high school classes were stream lined since day one of high school so you were in with other's of similar ability to you.

Depends on the circumstance. Say you're applying for a job that requires you to be certified in first aid: all that matters is the first aid certification itself. In the interview, you'll probably be asked whether you have your first aid; you might even be asked to show your certificate... but it would be very unlikely that the interviewer would ask you how many times you failed the course before you passed. All she cares about is that you know first aid now, not how you came to know it.

When applying for uni if it took you more than one year to get the grades you needed higher grades to get in. For example if for a course you needed 4 Bs in one year or 2 As and 2 Bs if you didn't get the 4 Bs in one year.

Depends. If it was happening because of repeated failures on the part of the PM, probably. If it was happening because the estimators and proposal writers kept giving the PM unrealistic budgets and schedules, the blame would probably go to them and not the PM.

If it is because the PM can't do his/her job or doesn't put the effort in then they will be fired.

I don't think you can be sure of that.

For example, take me: I got 8% (that's right, 8%) in grade 8 history. I hated my teacher and just decided to do no work at all in that class (note: I wasn't held back because at my school, you would pass or fail the year as a whole and to be held back, you needed to fail three courses). The next year, my first year of high school with new material and a new teacher, I did much better... better than some of my friends who scraped by with a bare pass the year before.

It's a mistake to apply population averages to individual people. On average, you may be right, but the actual individual results fall along a distribution, and not just at a discrete point. Some students will do better after failure. Some will do worse. Some students will do worse after just scraping by with their credit. The way we handle students should take into account the fact that they're all different people.

You have to average. Imagine a class of 30 the teacher can not teach something in 30 different ways.

I think it is.

Students fail classes for all sorts of reasons. If we are actually trying to educate kids, why would we treat all of these ones the same?

- the otherwise smart student who constantly skips school and isn't around to learn the material.
- the student who tries really hard, but just can't grasp the basic concepts.
- the student who would do okay if he applied himself a bit more.

The first and third one are the same thing, lack of effort. I think if the student isn't willing to put the effort in then the school shouldn't have to help them.

If you look only at the end result, and only in terms of whether the student failed or not, then they all look the same... just as the unlit bulb looks the same in all three cases... but if your goal is to actually help the students to learn, why would you treat them the same?

I will concede this point. If someone was trying really hard you would help them more but they might have to be moved down a class. If they weren't putting in the effort then I don't think they should get any extra help.

Why do you think the course would need to slow down?

There was barely enough time to cover the whole course when we were doing a new topic everyday. Like I mentioned before it was always very rushed.

It seems inconsistent to me to realize that students who pass do so with a range of acheivement while at the same time ignoring this fact for students who fail. 49% is not equal to 0%.

Yes but in our education system you need to get certain grades in the course before you can do the next level, it doesn't matter if you were only off by one mark you still didn't get the required grade.


I think our education systems are totally different. Over here classes are streamlined from 1st year of high school. You are in a class with others of similar ability. Also when it comes to exams here which are sat in 4th, 5th and 6th year there are 3 or 4 different levels. In 4th year you do standard grades, there are three levels Credit, General and Foundation. Then in 5th year you do Higher Still, again at three levels Higher, Intermediate 2, Intermediate 1. If you got a Credit in 4th year in that subject you done the Higher, if you got a General you done Int 2 and a Foundation Int 1. 6th year has the same option has 5th year except you can also do Advanced Highers if you passed the Higher, or if you passed the Int 2 you would do the Higher.

 

[McBell]

Reminds me of the MCAS of Massachusetts... except that our sophomores have to pass it in order to graduate.

It is the same with the 9th grade and tenth grade Indiana Proficiency Tests here.

They way I understand it, students get to take it once in the 9th grade if they pass they do not have to take it again.
If they fail, they get another chance in the 10th grade.
If they do not pass it then, they do not get a Diploma.
Instead they get a Certificate of Attendance.

Now mind you, I have not a child in the 9th or 10th grade, mine are in the 2nd and 7th, so my understanding of the tests may not be accurate.

 

[DallasApple]

Here they give it in the 3rd..8th..and 11th..

If you dont pass them in the 3rd..you repeat the 3rd grade..Period..

In the 11th..if you dont pass..if you have the grades otherwise..you are promoted to 12th..and you just kee taking the test untill you pass..but if you dont??..You are not permitted to attend the graduation ceremony..and you do not recieve a diploma ....

My son as I said had to take the math test 4 times..He finally passed it about 2 weeks before graduation..We had gone ahead and had his senior photo done..and ordered his cap and gown..and had invitiations and announcements printed..But we had no idea if he would even graduate like I said up untill the last minute..And Im telling you I resent it..

I can understand trying to prevent students who are practically illiterate to graduate..But this was NOT the case with my son...He is horrible in math..Period...And he went to all the tutoring available to him..Specifically TAKS math test tutoring classes ...they gave him practice test and he was failing them..Also he failed "narrowly"..By one or two questions each time..Which was another frustrating aspect..I would have been a lot more concerned it he was bombing it each time..

Love

Dallas