Creative Grading
A Leadership Academy graduate and current Brooklyn principal can’t add. That’s what the Daily News and Channel 2 say. But that’s not the only worrying part of the story.
Lafayette High School Principal Jolanta Rohloff created a grading percentage scheme that was “interesting.”
| Percentage | |
| Regents score | 25% |
| Homework | 10 – 20% |
| Classwork | 10 – 20% |
| Exams | 60 – 75% |
Apparently the new policy went out in a memo mailed to parents, and was caught early enough that less than 200 went out. Channel 2 has it in a pie chart form (I don’t know if the pie is the original). ——->
Now, the percentages add up to 105 – 140%. This grading system does not work. So we can joke that this principal can’t add, have our chuckle, and move on. Not so fast.
(Skip down to #6 before you leave)
1. Anyone can make a mistake. But when a ‘leader’ does, it correctly draws an extra bit of attention. In this case, however, the DoE had to ask the principal to fix the chart. (I can’t tell from the coverage if she admits to error – if not, that is worrying)
click for the rest here ————————————->
2. Addition mistakes happen, but they are really not so little. Our society tends to think that reading failure is awful and embarassing, but math failure, well, not good, but lots of people have trouble with math, so it is somehow ok. This attitude is common. And it stinks. And for a school leader to propagate it, that stinks even more.
3. Oh, right, instead of correcting the mistake and admitting error, the Leadership Academy principal tried to explain that she was providing teachers with flexibility.
4. Little typos happen. But if several eyes are looking them over, they are not as likely to make it to publication. And with a new school policy, wouldn’t this go to the APs and even the teachers before being released? This probably did not happen. This may be a symptom of autocratic decision making.
In fact, according to Channel 2, the DoE tried to partially explain this away by saying there is a group of teachers with a grudge against Rohloff.
5. Rohloff is a graduate of the Leadership Academy. Any time a Leadership Academy graduate goofs, teachers will take notice. It seemed plain in advance that there would be problems with administrators who went to “administrator school” instead of gaining experience through years of working in the classroom.
6. Look at those numbers! Let’s ignore, for a moment, the mistake in addition. This principal wants a minimum of 85% of the grade to be based on test scores (exams + regents). In fact, by using the high end exam weight, 100% would be based on test scores!
I strongly advocate that some credit should be given for effort (ie, classwork and homework). What I really want are higher scores, but I understand that by giving significant credit for homework, I am conning students into doing more homework (and thereby increasing their test scores!) Likewise for participation/classwork.
The numbers in that chart infuriate me for not adding to 100%, but worry me for de-emphasizing effort.
It’s possible that this is an awfully good principal who made one mistake, and was horrible at correcting herself. But the record raises questions. Leadership Academy seems to be the worst training available. A NYC teacher-blogger sent a letter to her file last month.
And I found these comments on the Lafayette HS review page of Inside Schools dot org:
According to an article in the New York Post, the school’s active alumni association has not been able to meet on school property this year after Principal Jolanta Rohloff stopped taking calls from its members, and the group is appealing to illustrious alumni to force a change in leadership at the school. (October 2006)
Principal Jolanta Rohloff reduced the final grades for almost 300 students because they failed the Regents exam associated with the course, even though regulations prevent Regents scores from accounting for more than one-third of a students’ grade, the New York Post reported on August 29, 2006. The Department of Education ordered Rohloff to reinstate the students’ grades, but she also put in place a formal policy to lower grades in the future, which the Department of Education also removed, the Post reported on Sept. 11, 2006.
This doesn’t look good.
JD2718 
This could actually serve as an interesting grade-raising mechanism (although I assume that wasn’t what was intended, especially given the desire to lower student grades post-Regents). Suppose a teacher follows these guidelines, and wants to de-emphasize exams, so we get 25% Regents, 20% each homework and classwork, 60% in-class exams. Then a student who consistently is borderline passing (say, grades from 60-70) would end up with a final grade of 75 (= 60*.25 + 60*.2 + 60*.2 + 60*.6).
You have to wonder what makes her so obsessed with the test scores. Is it, perhaps, her training?
Certainly the Feds, State, and City are pushing hard on testing. And I have not heard that the “Leadership Academy” pushes a principled anti-testing positionl; I find that highly unlikely.
But the further one is from the classroom, the more likely one supports systematic over-testing. What do we have? Principals (maybe including this one) with no or minimal classroom experience.
JBL,
interesting. I would prefer a scheme that rewards effort (ie, homework inflated vis a vis tests), rather than one that inflates across the board.
60% test, 20% homework, 10% classwork, 10% ‘project’ is pretty much my standard these days. A kid with a 55 test average can pass, but needs to do all the homework, do a nice project (I give little projects each marking period) and participate well – IOW work hard. And by working hard, those test grades might just go up.
I as student wouldnt want a principal like that one in my high school. It shows that she has a sort of obession with grades but doesnt really show interest in wanting to help children learn. The key of helping students to excel in school is offering them alot of help and support. instead of making students stress out so much to pass a test they should stress the fact that if they do indeed understand what they are learning. I feel that she wouldnt be a good candidate for a prinicipal and its good that shes not teaching in that high school in brooklyn.
I agree with you. I don’t think any of us need a principal like that one.
Unfortunately, the NYC Dept of Education is pushing its principals to focus on “data” in an incredibly meaningless way. Newer principals, principals who aren’t as smart, principals with less experience, principals who practice saying yes to the DoE and no to teachers and parents – these principals will respond in particularly inane and frustrating ways.
I wish it would stop.