Why not allow high school students to drop a course as soon as the final class ends?

[Boojatta]

In other words, why force a student to write a final examination if the student has good reason to expect to fail the course? For at least part of high school, the education is compulsory, but that doesn't mean that examinations need to be compulsory. In fact, there is an examination called the "GED" and in many states it's far from compulsory. Based on age, a student may be prohibited from attempting the GED.

Compulsory education is about compulsory attendance of classes. Once the classes end, a student's obligations have ended. Of course, the student isn't entitled to academic credit, but why should there be a failure on the student's permanent record? If a student attempts an exam question and makes no progress on that particular question, then the student will have merely wasted time that could have been devoted to earning marks for other questions on the same exam. Attempting an exam question, making no progress, and earning zero marks for that question doesn't necessarily create a permanent record of failure on academic transcripts. Why should it? Is there any evidence that anti-learning occurs when this happens?

If students were free to study without the risk of a permanent record of failure, then they would be able to put more effort into learning and less effort into merely maximizing their grades. There will always be a difference between substantive learning and the acquisition of credentials. Trying to motivate a student to learn a particular subject by threatening the student with a permanent record of failure in that subject area sounds like a good way to persuade students to stop taking that subject as soon as they have a choice.

[dsc]

1. because school districts would game the system

I can easily see teachers in EOC courses here saying to their failing students just stay home. I could easily see principals telling teachers to let the star football player out of the class he is failing so he remains eligable.

[soothsayer]

2. with fear of failing, they can be more motivated to study and pass

is the ocntrary argument i think

[mike_c]

3. the primary reason, other than motivational...

...which is largely ineffective, IMO, is that seats are limited and/or costly. Allowing students to withdraw right up until the end of the course effectively takes away any incentive to avoid failure, but also ensures that the student will occupy a seat in that class again.

In college, that creates competition between under-performing students and incoming students for limited course availability. In high school, it creates additional burdens on the school district and tax payers who must accommodate the under-performing students regardless.

[Boojatta]

4. "In high school, it creates additional burdens on the school district and tax payers."

How can a policy that doesn't exist already be creating burdens?

[mike_c]

5. change that to...

..."it would create burdens," then. The reason I stated is one of the primary issues in higher ed-- in fact, the California State University has just implemented policies tightening the withdraw-and-do-over regulations even further in response to the state budget crisis.

I teach at the university level, not high school, so I'm familiar with some of the general educational and economic issues that motivate policy throughout the system, but not with which specific policies are or are not in place in high school.

[Boojatta]

7. You could say that if students guided their lives by the advice...

"if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again" ... then they would be imposing a burden on the system. Therefore, teachers who tell their students "if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again" should add a disclaimer because otherwise they might already be creating a burden on the system without realizing it.

[mike_c]

9. unfortunately, that's largely correct....

I mean, in the upper administration of the university system that employs me there is a strong-- and growing-- attitude that the folks who pay the most for the system, the tax payers and the legislature that "safeguards" their investment, have an interest in achieving some degree of cost efficiency in delivering educational services.

As an educator, I don't have much sympathy for models that derive from corporate management ideals. But as a professor, I would not be excited to have Johnny or Jane in my class for the fifth or sixth time, either. That's a pretty extreme example, but I *have* had students who were taking a class for the third time, and who still failed it. It's discouraging for everyone involved. I really wouldn't want to encourage that sort of thing by making it easy to withdraw without consequences over and over and over.

On the other hand, most folks who re-take a class do make better progress the second time through, so limiting their access to a do-over doesn't serve them well. The new rules the CSU is implementing are:

1) no do-overs for classes in which you earned a C- or better grade;

2) no more than two do-overs per class allowed.

These new restrictions are entirely budget driven. They are added to the existing rule:

3) no withdrawals allowed after a mid-semester threshold date without a "serious and compelling reason" requiring departmental and college approval.

[pnwmom]

6. Personally, I think that would be a good policy that would encourage

students to attempt difficult classes and to take heavier courseloads.

They still would be motivated to pass classes, because without enough credits, they won't graduate.

[SheilaT]

8. I'm not sure many high school students

are actually that motivated, least of all the ones most likely to fail a course. As it is, a remarkable number of high school students take only the minimum courses required to graduate or to get into college.

I'd certainly be in favor of retaking a class and having a passing grade wipe out the F. I also think it might be nice to have a bit of a "try out" time at the beginning of the semester or school year, where a student could sit in on a class for a week to see if it's something he or she wants to take.

I think a better solution might be to break up the school year into units that are about six weeks long. That would work out especially well with foreign languages and math -- if you fail one unit you only have to repeat that six week section, not a whole year, which is a real waste of everyone's time. And English, history, and science classes would also benefit from shorter self-contained units like that.

[Boojatta]

12. I think that this is a good idea.

break up the school year into units that are about six weeks long. That would work out especially well with foreign languages and math -- if you fail one unit you only have to repeat that six week section, not a whole year, which is a real waste of everyone's time. And English, history, and science classes would also benefit from shorter self-contained units like that.

The only thing that's not clear to me is why the units would have to all be about six weeks long. I'm not claiming that six weeks is an inappropriate duration for one unit. It's just that the process used to determine the duration is to me more interesting than some particular, numerical decision.

[SheilaT]

13. It's actually something I've thought

about a great deal over the years. If someone made a strong enough case for a different length of time for the units, I'm sure I could be persuaded. But six weeks is long enough to do certain things in depth, and yet short enough to make a lot of things workable. Math and foreign languages, as I mentioned, are the two most obviously sequential subjects. It's just nuts that someone fails algebra of the first year of French towards the end, and the only way to make it up is to repeat the entire year. I will admit, that it probably wouldn't be completely practical to offer all six-week sessions of all sequential courses (again math and foreign languages) at all times, but various compromises can be worked. Plus, the problem of failing is strongest at the entry level. Kids who go on to the third or fourth year of a foreign language generally aren't going to fail. The same with those who go on to calculus.

The real problem with six weeks is that it doesn't fit into the current semester system, which are about fourteen weeks long.

It would also be possible to have writing intensives for those students who really need the help, or grammar units. Grammar does not seem to be taught at the high school level so far as I can tell. It was when I was in high school, but my kids didn't get any in high school.

You could also do much more interesting things with various electives if they could be taught in smaller units.

I realize that the AP classes won't change, but there's no reason not to re-think a lot of how our high schools are structured.

[GodDamLiberal]

10. Unfair

It's unfair to the the students that take the course once and get a good grade.
Plus it can affect the GPA of students and their and others class ranking.

[Boojatta]

11. Are you suggesting that school is like a very long IQ test?

If you're trying to learn Spanish and it takes you longer than other students, but you do eventually learn it and your test scores accurately reflect the level of competence that you have achieved, then where is there any unfairness to students who learned Spanish more quickly than you? I would think that the purpose of studying Spanish is to learn Spanish, not to prove that you're a superior human being. Of course, Spanish is merely one example and I could say the same about any other subject area.

[HelenWheels]

14. phy ed, art, music should have choices

Students should be able to take these courses as pass/fail if they are mandatory.

I'd like to see the day when some music and art are mandatory in high school or have an exploratory class that is for students to take that would be pass/fail so they'd be willing to take the chance. I think we miss a lot of talent because a student doesn't feel they have talent or there talent isn't good enough to risk their grade point average on.