Failure Is Not An Option - Education Drops the Ball

Joe Wordsworth

Logician
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Posts
4,085
Failure is not an option

Louise Brown
Education Reporter


She has skipped 30 classes in a row and hasn't handed in an assignment all term, but the principal wants her teacher to cut this Grade 12 student some slack.

"He told me, 'Look, the student says she's finally willing to hand in all her work, so I want you to mark it and don't take off points for being late,'" sighs the English teacher at a west Toronto high school.

"Whatever happened to deadlines? We bend over so far for kids these days, it's a joke."

With the school year almost done, the pressure for marks is on – and not just for students, but also teachers.

A growing chorus of educators say Queen's Park's new drive to keep kids in school to 18 is pushing them to coddle students with inflated marks, too many second, third and fourth chances and too few flunking grades, adding to an already lofty sense of entitlement.

In a new survey of nearly 1,000 high school teachers in Durham Region, four out of 10 say they feel principals push them to drop standards so more students will pass. One in four feels pressured not to give an F.

Yet some say it's time to bring back the F-word – Fail – to a school system that has shunned it for a generation.

"Everyone wants what's best for the student, but teachers are asking, `Have we gone too far?'" says math teacher Ken Coran, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

"I can't say every principal is pushing teachers to raise marks, but the buzz we're hearing in staff rooms is, 'Are we making it too easy to get a credit?'"

Worried about the true value or integrity of school credits, a new provincewide teachers' work group on "credit integrity" has called for sweeping steps to lock in standards, including letting teachers give a "zero," something discouraged by the province in lieu of giving teens another chance.

The group is planning a symposium this fall to address mounting teacher complaints, and will meet June 19 with the Ontario Principals' Council to discuss the hot-button issue.

"One teacher ran into a student last summer who thanked her for a final mark of 50," said Oshawa math teacher Rudy Schmidt, "but the teacher was confused because she had given the girl 30-something. The principal had raised it to a pass.

"Many schools want teachers to keep failure rates below 10 per cent, but how is that possible when kids skip more than 15 classes with no consequence?"

Following the murder of Jordan Manners at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate, complaints about inflated marks have been swept into a larger debate about the shifting power balance between students and teachers.

Coran says many teachers feel increasingly powerless to keep schools safe because the office won't back them up on report cards or behaviour. Indeed, Ontario's new focus is to help at-risk kids, not crack the whip over their heads.

The McGuinty government has spent $1.3 billion on a smorgasbord of new supports, from summer literacy camps and free tutoring to "credit recovery" programs that let teens who fail a subject redo just the parts they flubbed, not the whole course.

While kids still fail courses, especially Grade 9 math, schools throw sinking students more and more remedial lifelines, and few are ever held back in grade school. Last year, for example, the York Region District School Board failed only six Grade 8 students out of 8,064 across the board. The year before that? One.

Together with Ontario's near-ban on deducting marks for late work – brought in by the Harris government so marks reflect what you know, not how you work – even some students ask if schools dole out too much help.

"It's not fair to good kids when no one gets marks off for being late," complained one Grade 10 student who handed in a final project by the May 3 deadline, only to be told to take it back because no one else was ready. "I don't think it's a good way to teach us to meet deadlines at work."

While Education Minister Kathleen Wynne says this kinder, more thoughtful approach to schooling helps more children learn, others charge it can drag standards down.

"Whatever happened to being allowed to fail?" asks Durham Region music teacher Jeff Pighin, who says he is one of a vanishing breed of teachers who fails several students each year in his Grade 9 music course and hands out exactly the marks he believes students deserve.

"I gave one student 8 per cent on his interim report card because he hadn't done a single assignment," said Pighin. Yet rather than let the student fail, the school is looking for alternate ways for the teen to earn this arts credit, he says.

"No wonder kids come to school thinking they're getting a free ride. There's some sense that you just can't fail," said Pighin. "We hand out credits like tic tacs."

Toronto student trustee Nick Kennedy thinks Ontario is right to let teachers deduct marks for lateness only as a last resort, and mark tardiness on a report card under "learning skills" instead.

"It's good because it doesn't confuse your work habits with your knowledge," says the Grade 12 student at North Toronto Collegiate. "School isn't there to teach you all life's lessons."

Jon Cowans disagrees. The Pickering history teacher has called for the return of the F as an educational form of tough love, and says the theory that `failure is not an option' produces students who simply aren't prepared to move on.

"I call it Credits Lite, the whole byzantine apparatus teachers must go through before you're allowed to fail a student." Principals ask how often a teacher called parents before failing the student, he says, and whether the teacher modified the work enough.

"But I teach a class of students, not just one. I'm not a tutor. If I work only with some students, the others will be climbing the wall," said Cowans.

"You don't dare give a student a mark between 45 and 49 because the school will push you to raise it to 50."

On the other hand, does failing work?

Research by Queen's University shows students who fail more than one Grade 9 course are more likely to drop out.

"I've been teaching long enough to remember those 15-year-old boys who were held back with 12-year-olds. It was horrible for their self-esteem," recalls Lynn Sharratt, York Region's curriculum superintendent. "I don't think we knew what to do with them."

York schools lead Ontario's remediation wave. The four weakest readers in every Grade 1 class get 12 to 20 weeks of daily tutoring through a program called Reading Recovery. And the board tops the province in reading and writing scores.

Nancy Vail agrees that failing students fails to help kids.

"The teacher used to say, 'Look, I taught it, you just didn't learn it. My job's done: you try again," said Vail, instructional co-ordinator for the Peel District School Board.

"Now we know if it didn't work the first time, more of the same won't work. The onus is on the educator to find a way to reach every student."

With what we now know about the different ways people learn – auditory or visual? male versus female? left brain/right brain? – Education Minister Wynne says there's pedagogical bedrock under this whole new focus on help. She points to the 6,000 more high school graduates every year as proof.

"It's true, we're going to extraordinary measures to help kids who are at risk, but I won't apologize for that. It's what we need to do to reach all kids who have been struggling on the fringes."

Wynne says she's open to teachers' suggestions about ensuring the value of a high school diploma, but said she trusts they're not lowering standards to help students at risk.

To principal Blair Hilts, president of the Ontario Principals' Council, it's simple: "There's no such thing as giving a student too much help."

Wow... Canada can be pretty lame.
 
CeriseNoire said:
How so? It's not so different from what goes on here in the US.
How so? Its in the article. Well, /I/ see the lowering standards as pretty lame. Not everyone's going to, I suppose.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
How so? Its in the article. Well, /I/ see the lowering standards as pretty lame. Not everyone's going to, I suppose.

I just meant because you only mentioned Canada being lame for it.
I see the lowering of the standards as being a problem too. What, with being a teacher and all.
 
I think it's an inherent problem any educational system will face as a continual battle with no final solution likely. Helping people without creating a dependency on that extra help is difficult to do. I don't think any system will achieve that absolutely. The best we can hope for is a decent balance that doesn't exclude too many who could have succeeded with more assistance nor pass too many who never really succeeded.
 
BlackShanglan said:
I think it's an inherent problem any educational system will face as a continual battle with no final solution likely. Helping people without creating a dependency on that extra help is difficult to do. I don't think any system will achieve that absolutely. The best we can hope for is a decent balance that doesn't exclude too many who could have succeeded with more assistance nor pass too many who never really succeeded.

Unfortunately, we are going in the direction of just passing kids who aren't ready. The worst is when other kids notice their peers who mysteriously moved on to the next grade and then assume they don't need to work either.
 
Public schools will continue to fail. or be relentlessly mediocre at best, because the incentives for them be excellent are so weak. They get obscene amounts of money* whether they are excellent or a shameful disgrace (which describes virtually all public schools in the This will change when parents are given unfettered choice of where to send their children to school, through vouchers or tax credits, which are preferrable for a variety of reasons.

More than a century ago our society chose to socialize the cost of educating children. That's OK, but we made one big mistake then: We also gave the government the task of running the schools. Nothing requires that we continue that model; it is sustained primarily through a reactionary, self-serving education establishment ("the blob") dominated by school employee unions, who essentially run the entire operation for their benefit.

What the OP describes in detail is just one of the countless symptoms of the skewed incentives in the system, in the U.S., Canada and Britain.


* Charter schools, parochial schools and many private schools get much better results for much less money, even when comparing SES apples-to-apples.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
Public schools will continue to fail. or be relentlessly mediocre at best, because the incentives for them be excellent are so weak. They get obscene amounts of money* whether they are excellent or a shameful disgrace (which describes virtually all public schools in the This will change when parents are given unfettered choice of where to send their children to school, through vouchers or tax credits, which are preferrable for a variety of reasons.

More than a century ago our society chose to socialize the cost of educating children. That's OK, but we made one big mistake then: We also gave the government the task of running the schools. Nothing requires that we continue that model; it is sustained primarily through a reactionary, self-serving education establishment ("the blob") dominated by school employee unions, who essentially run the entire operation for their benefit.


* Charter schools, parochial schools and many private schools get much better results for much less money, even when comparing SES apples-to-apples.

Well, not having done (most) of my schooling here, I can only speak from the point of view of one single teacher who is actually in the classroom everyday rather that looking in and thinking how easy it all is.

When it comes to money, my district at least is well know for actually spending money on the students. We can't afford the things schools in the wealthier areas can, so we spend out of our own pockets so our kids have the basic. As far as I know, our school's incentives are based on test scores (which is another rant for another day)

As for parents, they're often the reason it is 'suggested' that we give Johnny or Suzie and umpteenth chance. It kids fail, they'll threaten to sue, harass, or worse, until administrators feel it's easier to give in.

BTW I'm still waiting on those obscene amounts of money so I can put a down payment on my imaginary mansion.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
Public schools will continue to fail. or be relentlessly mediocre at best, because the incentives for them be excellent are so weak. They get obscene amounts of money* whether they are excellent or a shameful disgrace (which describes virtually all public schools in the This will change when parents are given unfettered choice of where to send their children to school, through vouchers or tax credits, which are preferrable for a variety of reasons.

More than a century ago our society chose to socialize the cost of educating children. That's OK, but we made one big mistake then: We also gave the government the task of running the schools. Nothing requires that we continue that model; it is sustained primarily through a reactionary, self-serving education establishment ("the blob") dominated by school employee unions, who essentially run the entire operation for their benefit.

What the OP describes in detail is just one of the countless symptoms of the skewed incentives in the system, in the U.S., Canada and Britain.


* Charter schools, parochial schools and many private schools get much better results for much less money, even when comparing SES apples-to-apples.


This is what I expected from you Rox.

Especially as you advocate physically injuring a child for cash.

Tsk.
 
Parental involvement aids student achievement.

That tends to happen a bit more in private schools.

And as for unions controlling everything? Half the teachers in my district can't afford to join the union.

:cool:
 
Now... given the huge numbers of educated people in America and the ability to have uniform standards through testing via communications technology (as compared to a hundred years ago), I wonder if privatized education would have a much better result than public?

I can see how it can be argued up and down. But, I'm intrigued by the idea of exit exams of some standardization and leaving education to the private sector. I could see how there'd be a crazy huge amount of competition--possible job surges.

Hmmm.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
This is what I expected from you Rox.

Especially as you advocate physically injuring a child for cash.

Tsk.
Let's be honest now. First, the cash was for the child, and the amount was very substantial - enough to pay for college. Second, there was no injury, only the same pain as when the nurse pricks the child's finger to take blood. Third, I did not advocate; I made the case for, which is not quite the same thing.

Compare this to the real injury that has been done for several generations to millions of inner city children by school systems operated by corrupt bureacracies and self-serving unions. The injury done by failing to give those children an education is incalculable; their chances of going to college are essentially zilch; in many places the odds are against them even graduating from high school. The money goes to those who do the injury, and who are fighting like devils to prevent reform.

I do not pretend that these children do not face many other disadvantages, not least of which is uninvolved parents, or that the schools alone can overcome all of that. But at present these school systems are contributing to the disadavantages these children face, not helping them overcome them. This is indefensible and absolutely shameful. You want to talk about real immorality? Look no further.

Finally, in many if not most states school employees have no choice - they must belong to the union. In many states or metropolitan areas school employees earn more than the average private sector worker, including professional and technical workers, and have fringe benefits and pension systems that are extraordinarily generous. Plus they get the summer off.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
Now... given the huge numbers of educated people in America and the ability to have uniform standards through testing via communications technology (as compared to a hundred years ago), I wonder if privatized education would have a much better result than public?

I can see how it can be argued up and down. But, I'm intrigued by the idea of exit exams of some standardization and leaving education to the private sector. I could see how there'd be a crazy huge amount of competition--possible job surges.

Hmmm.

Where I grew up, we had what could be considered exit exams. It actually worked quite well and bolstered the value of a diploma. Unfortunately, I fear that if that were done, there would be a whole lot of lawsuits.

As for Roxanne's comment, as I said, I must be missing out somehow on the huge salary. As for the summers off, considering the amount of hours spent on lesson planning, grading papers, in-service hours, etc, I sure need the summers off. (By 'off' I mean more in-service and curriculum planning).
 
CeriseNoire said:
Where I grew up, we had what could be considered exit exams. It actually worked quite well and bolstered the value of a diploma. Unfortunately, I fear that if that were done, there would be a whole lot of lawsuits.

As for Roxanne's comment, as I said, I must be missing out somehow on the huge salary. As for the summers off, considering the amount of hours spent on lesson planning, grading papers, in-service hours, etc, I sure need the summers off. (By 'off' I mean more in-service and curriculum planning).
The salaries vary by state and municipality. The average nationwide was around $47,000 in 2004, according to the AFT union. They ranged from $56,000 to $33,000, with at least two-thirds in the upper half of that range. This does not include extraordinary post-retirement and health bennies.

Actually, I have no problem with teachers getting paid much more than they do, if pay was tied to performance in a system characterized by competition and choice. In that system, teacher pay would be none of anyone else's business, just as it in private enterprise. My objection is that in the current system the worst teachers get paid the same amount as the best, and the incentive for schools to be innovative and excellent are very weak.
 
Last edited:
soapbox derby

Ms Appleby, are you now or have you ever been a teacher?

Because I don't mean to disparage your armchair, but it's a lot less reasonable place to theorize from than a classroom. What Cerise is telling you, in the nicest possible way, is that your ideas about what goes on are inaccurate. You are reasoning from poor data, and so are misled.
 
You should at least look at the article posted by Joe. What on earth impact would 'a free choice of where to send one's children' have on the problem of a child who skips 15 or 30 classes in a row?

edit: nobody is answering, so I'll just keep going.

Certainly we need to fail a child who opts out of class, particularly to the absolute extent cited, not attending at all. We had one recently, but a few years ago, who did an add-drop and just never reported to the new teacher's class. Midterm, we caught him. He had simply created another study hall for himself out of his sophomore English, which is a state requirement. He had to repeat sophomore English somehow, he'd missed too much of it. He did two sections of it for half the term, so that his total attendance finally matched up, and he was graded normally as he did. The alternative, it was made clear, was to repeat the year, basically. Or attend a summer session of some sort. One is required to have all four high school years of English. That's in order to graduate, by state law. Accreditation depends on that, even for private institutions.

If we were not willing to have Mr. Sabattus repeat the year, for real, and we certainly were, he would doubtless have continued to duck.

The situation described in the article is almost the case now, where I teach, though. There are exceptions and special arrangements made all the time, and I think the theory is, more and more, that one may not simply fail a student who chooses to do nothing. But it is certainly not the union which makes that climate. Your ideas about the net effect of the union are unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
Caitano said:
You should at least look at the article posted by Joe. What on earth impact would 'a free choice of where to send one's children' have on the problem of a child who skips 15 or 30 classes in a row?

edit: nobody is answering, so I'll just keep going.

Certainly we need to fail a child who opts out of class, particularly to the absolute extent cited, not attending at all. We had one recently, but a few years ago, who did an add-drop and just never reported to the new teacher's class. Midterm, we caught him. He had simply created another study hall for himself out of his sophomore English, which is a state requirement. He had to repeat sophomore English somehow, he'd missed too much of it. He did two sections of it for half the term, so that his total attendance finally matched up, and he was graded normally as he did. The alternative, it was made clear, was to repeat the year, basically. Or attend a summer session of some sort. One is required to have all four high school years of English. That's in order to graduate, by state law. Accreditation depends on that, even for private institutions.

If we were not willing to have Mr. Sabattus repeat the year, for real, and we certainly were, he would doubtless have continued to duck.

The situation described in the article is almost the case now, where I teach, though. There are exceptions and special arrangements made all the time, and I think the theory is, more and more, that one may not simply fail a student who chooses to do nothing. But it is certainly not the union which makes that climate. Your ideas about the net effect of the union are unrealistic.

There are a good many teachers in the AH, dude. It is not required to allow Ms Appleby to divert the discussion, if you don't wish to. Did your Sabattus fellow graduate, ultimately?
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
Compare this to the real injury that has been done for several generations to millions of inner city children by school systems operated by corrupt bureacracies and self-serving unions. The injury done by failing to give those children an education is incalculable; their chances of going to college are essentially zilch; in many places the odds are against them even graduating from high school. The money goes to those who do the injury, and who are fighting like devils to prevent reform.
Rox, you're doing the same thing here as you did for unions in another discussion (but eventually came around to "there's nothing wrong with unions per se". I nearly had a heart attack.) Blame a failed execution on it's general premise. Public education works just fine. Point in case, me and a whole generation and plenty of nations of me. I've seen public schools sprout out of the ground like fungus in the last decade due to an incentive that gives them a pretty level playing field on the market (tax funded flat rate sum per student, that goes to the school of choice). And what happens? Those that try to do the same job with the same resources per kid as the public schools, fail. Lack of experience, support organisation and resource sharing network, plus an ambition to skim profit off the top, and a tug-o-war for students (meaning hurling resources at advertising and preferring more "fun" education than useful), hurts the children. Those that via tuitions and parental donations have more resources per kid (as well as kids from wealthier and in general more stable homes) are doing excellent though. There is nothing wrong with private education per se ( :cool: ). But to make it work, seems to cost more.

Btw, teachers don't get summer off, they don't even get evenings off. I've been working as a teacher (at a private school no less, but it's the same all over) and it's like being a priest. You don't just switch on at 9 and off at 5.
 
Precisely. As liar testifies, privatization is an elitist idea. The Sabattuses of the world will gain nothing from it.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
Wow... Canada can be pretty lame.

So you're saying we should blame the gov't instead of taking responsibility for actually raising our children?

Most people today would rather send the kids to their rooms to play video games or watch TV than actually spend time with them. Where were the parents when this girl was absent for a whole month?
 
Simple and effective (and how private education succeeds) change the law (or possibly just guidelines) about how many children one teacher can handle. Thirty odd as far as I'm aware but in the care industry the ratio becomes 1/8 or thereabouts (still too many in lots of cases).

Imagine; a classroom with only 8 pupils!
 
gauchecritic said:
Simple and effective (and how private education succeeds) change the law (or possibly just guidelines) about how many children one teacher can handle. Thirty odd as far as I'm aware but in the care industry the ratio becomes 1/8 or thereabouts (still too many in lots of cases).

Imagine; a classroom with only 8 pupils!
There is no systematic evidence showing that this makes a signifigant difference in outcomes. In many countries class sizes are much larger and outcomes are superior. The same was true here in the past. (There were 55 children in my 1st grade class in a Catholic school.)
 
Weak performance incentives in the structure of an institution can be overcome by other factors, such as a culture that places a high value on education and shames young people who do not take advantage of the opportunity to get one, and parents who enable that. In the absence of such things institutional incentives are needed.

Recent press reports focused on a charter high school in inner city Detroit that has a 95 percent graduation rate, while the public schools there are under 50 percent(!). As a charter school it gets less money from the state. The money it gets from the state comes in on a per-pupil basis, and unlike regular schools parents are not required by virtue of where they live to send their children to a charter school. That is a proper incentive - if the school does not provide a better product, it will go out of business.

How did it succeed? Innovation. They rethought the high school experience for inner city youth and took proactive steps to address some of the critical issues. The teachers and managers were committed, and the incentive structure rewarded that, rather than ignoring it, which is the case in regular public schools.

As I said, the only reason I or anyone else should care about how much teachers are paid is because the education establishment insists that all that's necessary is acheive excellence is to give it more money, and perpetuates a myth that teachers are grossly underpaid. In the aggregate they are not. If you say that the really good ones are I won't disagree, but will point out that they are paid the same as the worst ones. What message does that kind of incentive structure send? Incentives aren't only about money, they speak to what we value. The current structure says we value committment and excellence no more than crap.

Utopia is not an option. No system can help a child who skips all the classes. But even that child and others from families that don't care benefit when competition is injected into the system, because it forces all schools to get serious about improvement. That is the opposite of elitist.

Here's elitist: My kids' school is OK, so I'm not in favor of any systemic change.
 
To Liar: In most of the United States public schools get at least $7,000 per student for operations, and usually more for buildings and such. In most cities they get much more - $12,000 or $15,000 per student is not unusual. Charter schools, parochial schools (Catholic) and many private schools operate on far less money and in general deliver superior outcomes.

Money is not the problem. All the money in the world won't help if the incentives are wrong.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
There is no systematic evidence showing that this makes a signifigant difference in outcomes. In many countries class sizes are much larger and outcomes are superior. The same was true here in the past. (There were 55 children in my 1st grade class in a Catholic school.)

You can systematically evidence all you like. private (public to you) pupils are taught in smaller classes. Private schools, in general, are deemed to be more successful.

There's only one common factor. Class size.
 
Back
Top