Sadker8 Casenote 3 2

Silverman-Welty-Lyon:
Case Studies for Problem

Solving
The Teachers, Schools, and

Society Reader
Teaching Note: Leigh Scott
Case Study 3.2
The McGraw-Hill
Teacher Companies, 1993
TEACHING NOTE
Case Study 3.2: LEIGH SCOTT
PRIMARY TOPIC: Grading
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AREAS: Diversity, Mainstreaming, Social
Studies Teaching
INTRODUCTION
This case, as most reality-based cases do, presents several quite different discussion topics. The discussion leader could choose to center this case discussion around grading, or mainstreaming, or racial bias, or confrontations
with students, all rich and controversial issues backed by theoretical constructs. Strong differences of opinion exist among both experts and neophytes as to how to deal with these issues in the reality of the public school.
Obviously, the discussion leader should choose issues to emphasize depending on the purpose for using this case and the knowledge the participants
have at the time the case is presented. But because this situation is real
rather than hypothetical, each issue becomes more complex because of its
impact on the others. Thus, the question of grading policies cannot be discussed in the abstract but must be understood in the context of mainstreaming and of a multicultural society full of racism.
The case revolves around the grading policy of Leigh Scott. There is
enough information about that policy in the case to outline it and then begin
to analyze it. Rather than discuss grading theory in the abstract it would seem
better to discuss Leigh Scotts particular theory. The class should identify how
she is awarding grades, what she is using grades for, what the strengths and
weaknesses of her system are, and what alternative systems might have been
used. Certainly, inherent in this discussion is the question of the relative objectivity/subjectivity of grades and whether appropriate teacher pleasing behaviors should be considered in the equation when grades are calculated. As
well, the issue of grading mainstreamed students is central to this discussion.
Should they be graded on the same scale using the same standards as the regular students since, in point of fact, they are being mainstreamed? Or should
their handicaps be recognized and their progress in spite of these handicaps
be rewarded? This discussion turns again to the question of what grades are
being used for and why. Grades are a reality for every teacher in almost every
teaching situation, yet few educational systems encourage teachers to think
From Silverman/Welty/Lyon, Case Studies for Teacher Problem Solving, 1997. Reproduced by
permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Solving

Society Reader
Case Study 3.2
The McGraw-Hill
critically about grading, perhaps because when taken seriously grading is

among the most agonizing tasks teachers perform. There is, or should be, a
guiding rationale for grading in every teachers mind. The discussion will be
deepened if accompanied by theoretical readings on grading.
The grading discussion provides an interesting opportunity for trading
places. If this case is being used in a class (rather than a workshop or seminar), the students might be challenged to comment on the grading philosophy of this course, especially the weight given to participation and the
method used to account for it. Have you made the mechanics of your system
clear? Have you made its rationale clear? Should you? How much subjective
leeway should a teacher have when grading? What implicit criteria do you
use in your grading? Should they be made explicit? Can they be? Discussions
about teaching sometimes become meta-discussions when they occur with
teachers. The discussion leader should be ready for them and even encourage them, if they have been thought out ahead of time.
An issue as compelling as evaluation in this case is that of mainstreaming. Since the enactment of Public Law 94-142, classroom teachers have had
mainstreamed students in their classes. Some of these students are not able
to successfully meet standard classroom requirements. A decade earlier,
most of these students would have been served exclusively in special education settings. Many teachers have been reluctant to accept classified students
in regular education and as Leigh points out in the case, high school teachers have been the most reluctant. The rationale for mainstreaming a student
like Dale, one who cannot read the textbook very well, is that it is more important for him to learn age-appropriate social skills than the content of the
course. Clearly, Meg Dament believes that -she fights to have her students
mainstreamed into average-level classes, not remedial ones. And Leigh appears to agree with Meg. She is prepared to reward Dales effort despite his
low skills. Some participants will be uncomfortable with the concept of social
mainstreaming. They will argue that the problems could have been avoided
if Dale were in a remedial class and that a student who cannot read the textbook should not be in the classroom. This discussion is an important one to
encourage, particularly if the discussion leader is prepared to challenge the
students who propose these views. Discussing the pros and cons of mainstreaming may allow students to rethink their more narrow view of this topic.
But the leader must make sure that the discussion does not stall on this
point. It is important to remind the participants that the problem exists Dale is in Leighs class, and she gave him a higher grade than she gave
Aaron. Was that fair? Should mainstreamed students be judged by a different standard? Should any student be rewarded for effort, classification issues
aside? How do we build that into the system in a fair and equitable way?
Race represents yet another complication facing Leigh. Aaron is black
and would appear to accuse Leigh of racial prejudice. This issue certainly
complicates the behavioral issue discussed below. Since it is on Leighs
Solving

Society Reader
Case Study 3.2
The McGraw-Hill
mind, it will affect her meeting with Aaron. This is an emotionally

charged issue, one that cannot be avoided, even if participants are reluctant to talk honestly and rationally about it. It is clearly a problem that will
arise more than once in most teachers careers as our schools become
more multicultural. Perhaps it might best be handled by asking the group
to act as an advisor to Leigh Scott. How should she prepare herself for a
repeat of Aarons accusations? How can she test herself to make sure she
has not been influenced by racially-biased feelings? How can she help
Aaron learn to deal with racism and to distinguish between honest judgment and prejudice? Leigh says that she is color blind. Is that possible?
Isnt skin color one of the first characteristics the eye sees? Participants
should acknowledge that being aware of someones skin color does not
mean one is prejudiced.
Leigh Scott is in a particularly uncomfortable situation with respect to
teacher-student relations. The group should reflect not only on how she
should handle the upcoming interview with Aaron but whether she should
have agreed to the conference on the terms stated. Thus, the discussion
should turn both on what to do and whether she should have done what she
did: foresight and hindsight. Leigh may not have managed the original contact with a complaining Aaron very effectively. Should she have let Aaron
challenge her grading system so easily, especially when that challenge was
based on a comparison (and a rather detailed comparison, at that) of his
grades with another students? Usually, students do not have the opportunity
to make such complete comparisons, and, of course, Aaron misses the complexity of the problem, since he does not have the grades of the other students in the class to compare his with.
Clearly, advice to Leigh on her future action should rest on the philosophical discussion of the grading policy as suggested above, but the participants should also pay attention to other questions. Is Leigh prepared to
handle the racism charge if it comes? What does Leigh hope will be the outcome of the encounter? Can she gain something or only avoid losses? How
about Aaron? Can he win something, too? This is a good opportunity to
raise and discuss these important behavioral issues that constantly present
themselves in teaching. Teachers need to be aware of them, to begin to think
them through ahead of time, and to understand that encounters with students can lead to improved relations.
BLOCKS OF DISCUSSION
1. GradingA discussion plan centered around the grading issue logically
begins there, as participants explain and evaluate Leighs system. By dissecting Leighs grading philosophy, participants should begin to recognize the need to adopt one of their own, and the discussion can evolve to
a more general analysis of grading schemes, including an analysis of the
Solving

Society Reader
Case Study 3.2
The McGraw-Hill
grading system for this course. This analysis will also include discussion
of appropriate grading postures for mainstreamed students, and whether
or not Leigh was right to have accommodated Dales special situation in
her evaluation decision.
2. MainstreamingThe discussion can logically proceed to a discussion of
mainstreaming in general if that is an appropriate focus given the discussion leaders objectives for the case. Participants can be asked to describe
and evaluate social mainstreaming and should then be brought back to
the dilemma of the case to determine the validity of differentiating grades
in order to make such mainstreaming decisions work.
3. ActionsParticipants are now in position to advise Leigh about her imminent meeting with Aaron, and in so doing they must contemplate his
charge of racism and fashion a proper response. They must also decide
what Leigh should do and how she should communicate her decision to
Aaron.
SUGGESTED QUESTION OUTLINE

1. Does Aaron have a legitimate complaint here? Is Leigh Scotts grading system fair? Probes...
1. Explain the grading system. How much of it is explicit? How much
should be?
2. How is Leigh awarding grades? What is she rewarding? What is she punishing?
3. Ultimately, what is she using grades for? What drives the system?
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of her system?
5. How would you solve the weaknesses of her system?
2. What do you think of the grading system in our class? Probes...
1. Is it fair?
2. What are its strengths and weaknesses?
3. What about the participation grade?
3. Do mainstreamed students require a different grading system or should it
be the same as for regular students? Probes...
1. How/when should this be determined?
2. What role does a students I.E.P. play in this?
3. Why was a student who cant read the text placed in this class? Was that
appropriate?
4. Is it right to modify grading criteria to make social mainstreaming
work?
4. Should Leigh have accepted Aarons challenge to her grading system by
agreeing to hear his protest? Probes...
1. Is Aarons comparison with Dale fair?
2. Should a teacher allow a student to protest a grade?
Solving

Society Reader
Case Study 3.2
The McGraw-Hill
3. Should a grade ever be changed? Under what circumstances? How

about the grades of the students who did not protest?
5. How should Leigh handle an accusation of racial prejudice? Probes...
1. How should Leigh treat Aaron? As a troublemaker? As a serious student
with a legitimate grievance?
2. How can she test herself for bias?
3. How can she help Aaron learn to deal with racism?
6. How should Leigh prepare for the meeting with Aaron? What does she
want to happen? For her? For Aaron? Probes...
1. Where should the meeting be, in her classroom? In an office? Is where
they meet important?
2. Should she be ready to change Aarons grade?
3. Should she be ready to revise her grading system?
SUGGESTED BOARD HEADINGS *

1. LEIGHS GRADING SYSTEM
2. MAINSTREAMING
3. MEETING WITH AARON
ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS
1. Should Leigh be prepared to change Aarons grade?
2. How objective should a grading system be? Do students deserve special
consideration for effort?
3. How should Leigh prepare to handle the meeting with Aaron?
*An
example of a complete board outline can be found at the end of the Teaching Note for Marsha
Warren.

Sadker8 Casenote 3 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sadker8 Casenote 3 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sadker8 Casenote 3 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Silverman-Welty-Lyon:

Case Studies for Problem

The Teachers, Schools, and

Teaching Note: Leigh Scott

Case Study 3.2

The Teachers, Schools, and

Teaching Note: Leigh Scott

Case Study 3.2

critically about grading, perhaps because when taken seriously grading is

The Teachers, Schools, and

Teaching Note: Leigh Scott

Case Study 3.2

mind, it will affect her meeting with Aaron. This is an emotionally

The Teachers, Schools, and

Teaching Note: Leigh Scott

Case Study 3.2

SUGGESTED QUESTION OUTLINE

The Teachers, Schools, and

Teaching Note: Leigh Scott

Case Study 3.2

3. Should a grade ever be changed? Under what circumstances? How

SUGGESTED BOARD HEADINGS *

You might also like