Profit model school caught deleting bad grades

A for-profit school that was hyped by Republican lawmakers as a solution to Tennessee’s education problems recently admitted deleting bad grades to “more accurately recognize students’ current progress.”

A December email obtained by WTVF showed that Tennessee Virtual Academy’s vice principal instructed middle school teachers to delete “failing grades” from October and September.

“After … looking at so many failing grades, we need to make some changes before the holidays,” the email says, adding that each teacher needed to “take out the October and September progress [reports]; delete it so that all that is showing is November progress.”

“If you have given an assignment and most of your students failed that assignment, then you need to take that grade out.”

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

With so many failing they should be looking at the teachers

what is being taught, the testing and the knowledge levels of the students.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

Do wht Sweden does on taht front, and once teachers see that parents can realy choose the school they send their children to, they'll smarten up.



Well-written national exams can help with that on the intellectual side at least, though granted on the moral education and possibly skills side then certainly you'll need quality teachers.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

Regardless of the profession you will have those that passed, met the min standard, cannot perform in the workplace and that includes teachers. A protected species in Canada.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

B...b...but we can't adopt those nasty Republican school vouchers. We should emulate the Swedish socialist model...

hmmm... But most US school districts don't have school vouchers whereas Sweden has a national voucher programme...

Now I'm confused... Let me get back to you on that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Is there a reason you are focussed on Sweden's model?

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

With so many failing they should be looking at the teachers, what is being taught, the testing and the knowledge levels of the students.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

Standardized tests should be controlled by the government of course. I don't know of any government other than what you're referring to here that does not have standardized tests across its jurisdiction. Even Sweden with its 'free schools' funded by its voucher programme and Hungary with its myriad course options all have standardized tests nationwide. Sure it's reasonable to give the school and parents more choice and autonomy, but obviously that should not extend to standardized tests.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM

Generally speaking 50% has been regarded as the passing mark on pretty much any test. That is an arbitrary figure assigned to tests of vastly different degrees of difficulty. Once it can be determined who can be passed and failed fairly, that should eliminate one problem. I think one of the biggest problems with young people today is their inability to accept failure (one of the biggest methods of how we learn................trial and error). If you are only failing 25% of the time you are probably a success.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave

The BC teachers union is dead set against the standardized tests administered in I think grades 4 and 7. They are afraid poor results may reflect negatively on the teachers.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

Standardized tests should be controlled by the government of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy

There are all kinds of problems with the education system. First yes tests should be
controlled by the government that include homes school if it does not already.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sal

Like they should be shocked? To me this has zero to do with standardized testing,or poor teaching and everything to do with what happens when you treat a learning environment like a business.

Yes it was unethical but understandable when you think the pressure is on them to produce, produce, produce results because it means money, money money. As soon as you bring money into a situation like education or health care people get screwed. It becomes competitive in unhealthy ways. I know how stats can be manipulated because when you are looking for funding you manipulate where ever possible to enhance the outcome.

Pressure does that. Pursuit for profit does that.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave

Soon as you briing unions into healthcare and education the people get screwed because it is all about the money.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sal

unions and big business are just different sides of the same coin... unions do protect the little guy wage wise, but if they kill the big business it defeats the purpose. Retail is a prime example of poor wages due to the absence of unions. The wages are horrific yet the payoff to the employer can be huge. So it's a middle ground we need to aim for.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan

The big difference that you'll see between unions and business is that business has a direct measure of both competition and accountability. Poorly run businesses (generally) don't last - the public votes with their dollars or competition drives down the prices to levels that are unsustainable for inefficient business.

The contemporary impact of unions today are the antithesis of efficiency and competition... They serve to drive up costs (prices) and cloud the efficiency of the efforts

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan

I'm kinda on the fence regarding what you've suggested.

On one hand, the unions have existing legislation on which to lean, but that same opportunity is not offered to a corporate entity.

In terms of balance; my question to you is who are the primary entities? In my eyes, it is the relationship between the producer and the consumer, where the employee base is included as part of the producer

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM

Contrasting Unions and big business might make more sense, Unions are just another level of bureaucracy, funded by the employee.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sal

I have also gone from pro union, to anti union and now I am back to thinking without the unions big business could once again fully victimize the worker. The union environment where I work limits the hours we work. But in reality when I am working on site there is no way I could possibly accomplish and reach the expectation level demanded because in spite of the union all positions are not equal. And honestly some people say.... What isn't done, isn't done and then they walk away. At first I thought that appalling, but in reality one can only push one's self so far and then burn out happens.

That's why I have been examining if it really works and I don't know any more if it does especially in a global economy. I guess the older I become the more I realize that things are never as they appear. And maybe we must always be searching for better ways for everything.

A consumer based society merely promotes consumerism. We need something better.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM

Two thoughts, the time of labour shortage is upon us as boomers are quickly leaving the work scene, so not wise for employers to victimize workers. How much worker "burnout" is due to not working "smart" rather than working too hard?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

An interesting report of a Tennessee for-profit school caught deleting failing grades:
Republican-backed for-profit school caught deleting bad student grades | The Raw Story

So much for the superior metrics and performance standards. There is nothing accurate about deleting performance records.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

Standardized tests should be controlled by the government of course. I don't know of any government other than what you're referring to here that does not have standardized tests across its jurisdiction. Even Sweden with its 'free schools' funded by its voucher programme and Hungary with its myriad course options all have standardized tests nationwide. Sure it's reasonable to give the school and parents more choice and autonomy, but obviously that should not extend to standardized tests.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM

Generally speaking 50% has been regarded as the passing mark on pretty much any test. That is an arbitrary figure assigned to tests of vastly different degrees of difficulty. Once it can be determined who can be passed and failed fairly, that should eliminate one problem. I think one of the biggest problems with young people today is their inability to accept failure (one of the biggest methods of how we learn................trial and error). If you are only failing 25% of the time you are probably a success.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave

The BC teachers union is dead set against the standardized tests administered in I think grades 4 and 7. They are afraid poor results may reflect negatively on the teachers.

Trades require a minimum of 70%. As are all the first aid exams I have taken. Our firefighter certification required 80%. But people that do these kind of jobs must be better prepared than cube rats because mistakes can be fatal when you are fixing cars or putting out fires.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM

Contrasting Unions and big business might make more sense, Unions are just another level of bureaucracy, funded by the employee.