Donate now

Privacy Policy

Protection of privacy is our first concern, and SQE does not sell or trade information provided by its subscribers or supporters. Your information is used to process donations and newsletter subscriptions, and to contact you about upcoming publications and events.

feed iconSubscribe to our Blog
Follow Us
Follow SQESocQualEd on Twitter

Please note Downloads require you to have the Adobe Reader installed, you can get it here for free Adobe.com

 

 
 
Society for Quality Education

A system steeped in mendacity and pusillanimity

October 03, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 05:00 AM

Here’s a story that’s outside our usual beat - it’s from the post-secondary panel - but nevertheless relevant to any discussion of accountability. SQE honorary patron Rod Clifton, a professor of education at the University of Manitoba, was removed from a thesis committee because he insisted that the thesis contained “fundamental errors in the analysis of data”. Here’s a Maclean’s report on this story. In the end, the student was granted his PhD without changes to his statistical analysis.

It’s aparently a bit more sophisticated at the university level, but nevertheless it’s the same phenomenon as elementary and secondary principals changing their teachers’ marks (see this article from our archives). If teachers’ marks can be “turned to ashes by the stroke of a principal’s pen”, we might as well strip away the trappings of accountability and give principals the responsibility of determining students’ marks in the first place - thereby saving teachers considerable effort. And, following this logic, we might as well give university deans the responsibility of deciding which students are granted a degree. 

Comments

Rightly or wrongly
High school teachers’ marks are always
recommendations
and principals have the final say on them.

his has been true for many decades.

Posted by John Myers on 10/03 at 05:27 AM

Most often the principals don’t have the expertise in the subject to be given this power.  Actually nor do the teachers at times have the necessary subject knowledge.  sigh…

Posted by Bev on 10/03 at 06:28 AM

The last sentence in the second link from the archives - “Borrowing from Jimmy Porter, the “angry young man” in Look Back in Anger, we have been part of a system steeped in “mendacity and pusillanimity.”

As well as setting examples for the students, that are at the lowest bar for standards. Just like the PHD student who apparently argued that his thesis stands, because the errors can be corrected after the fact. Many on the panel, thought in the same vein, and where the origins came from the K to 12 system, where parents and students demand extra marks, even though it is apparent the student had not studied, or have weak studying skills.

Last week, my 16 year old came home, carrying the tale of students approaching teachers for increases in grades, that were undeserved. As my youngest has stated, it is starting early this year, and she does get peeved, due to the early experiences of grade school, having marks taken off, because she did not used the approved methods, but it was the correct answer. In high school, not much concern about what method is used, but much concern about the correct answer, and how one arrived at the answer.

My child may no longer have to take a hit on marks because she used a different method, but she does see the actions of students, even the ones who received a 90 something, aiming for increase marks. Not one student, blame the font size of the quizzes, and I was surprised that my youngest did very well. The font size, was too small, and it does cause difficulties, especially for students who have some type of learning problem. The parent teacher interviews, will be font size and the soon to be problem of a paper shortage.

Seriously though, even if the font size does change, it will not stop the students who feel entitled to marks that they did not earned. Just like the PHD student, who felt entitled to plowed ahead, even though serious ““fundamental errors in the analysis of the data” were found. To repeat the beginning, ” we have been part of a system steeped in “mendacity and pusillanimity.”

Posted by Nancy on 10/03 at 07:34 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages

Leave A Comment

Name:

Email (required but not displayed):

Emotions

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: You can't have your garden and eat it too

Previous entry: Sunday at the Movies (The Bottom Line)