"'C+' in Chemistry Leads To Lawsuit Against School District
A former Albany High student is suing the school district because of the grade his chemistry teacher...gave him last year, in hopes of getting a court order for the district to change the grade to an A+."
The article goes on to describe the specifics of what happened between the teacher and the student regarding a lab that he missed due to an absence. It is this lab that lowered his grade to a C+.
My first thought upon reading the article was, "This is what happens when grades are the focus, not the learning."
I'll let you read the details about what happened between the chemistry teacher and the student that resulted in the disputed grade. But what I find much more interesting than the "she did this and he did that" details is the stated basis of the lawsuit itself:
"Because of the grade and the events described between May 2011 and January 2012, the plaintiffs say the district violated Bethards' [the student] civil rights and caused him severe physical and emotional suffering, and damage to his academic reputation, his chances of getting into college and his future employment opportunities."
I know most teachers would be appalled and/or angry about this lawsuit; however, what do you expect when we have created a system where a grade has nothing to do with learning? A system where students can game it to be "successful," with them jostling for points that the teacher (the designated Keeper of Points & Grades) judiciously doles out so students can achieve their desired letter of the alphabet all because we have deemed that those letters determine their GPA and their future? Learning goes out the window. And we sometimes allow students to purchase grades with points, no learning required. I used to allow students to do this all the time, every time I gave them extra credit (ka-CHING) for bringing in classroom supplies or gave students points just for completing an assignment. You can't see it, but I'm cringing at my past teacher self. A lot.
What is very intriguing about this whole situation in Albany (to me, anyway) is what's not given a lot of coverage in the article or the comments--there is an awful lot of discussion about grades, but not a lot of discussion about whether the student learned what he was supposed to learn from the lab. What, exactly, was he supposed to learn? Was the lab experiment a critical piece of evidence of understanding, or were there other more recent pieces of evidence for those concepts that could be used to determine the student's level of mastery? Was the lab itself a valid assessment or inquiry learning activity, or was it a typical "cookbook" lab designed by textbook manufacturers that students can do and still learn absolutely nothing when they come out on the other side?
But the most important question is this: Can the student show (or has he already shown) in some way he has mastered the concepts the lab was trying to assess/teach? The answer to that question, in my humble yet crazy opinion, is what should determine the student's grade. Connect the grade to the learning.