we were advised to include this because we couldn't grade down for say attendance but this have us leeway if kids were gone alllll the time (like rich kids whose families do whatever), or kids who cut and then parents excuse them so they legally could make up the work.
These two examples are night and day, and the socioeconomic bias towards rich kids isn't even veiled. We live in one of the wealthiest districts in our state, and I have a hard time believing some of the of the kids whose parents can afford 6 weeks in Europe while requiring their children to keep up with studies hardly qualifies as wasted time. I really don't get the resentment towards children whose parents can provide those kinds of opportunities; if sure would if I could. And it is seriously not the same as some kid who is ditching - wealthy or poor.
I have never understood participation grades. My daughter played the system and got A's because she knew how to nod her head while doing homework for another class - she wasn't paying attention but sure looked the part. My youngest, who actually cares about learning, rarely gets full points for behavior because of spacing out thinking about something the teacher said or because of challenging a premise of the teacher's and getting docked for being disrespectful. He actually gets far more out of the class than my daughter, but because she was a better game-player, she got the points for participation.
If a kid is disruptive, there should be consequences, but grades should be about whether they learned the assigned material.
Just my two cents
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear, but I meant that was the message given by the district admins, who wanted the attendance money (and yes, they did not hide their chagrin with the more privileged families, when talking to staff. I agree the attitude is annoying. Toxic attitudes abound in education, I'm afraid, but you can successfully seek out the positive colleagues, fortunately). And to be fair, plenty of kids in our district will skip for the beach or going shopping, etc, whether it was with mom or just excused by her after the fact. Which I personally still wouldn't begrudge a kid occasionally, though I heard for some it was a weekly issue. But I didn't find it a big problem with my students (maybe my school site--we had kids go on trips and it did not affect their participation grade in my class! You have to take each student individually--some have IEPs, some have a recent trauma, some miss because they have to work, some want to only share prepared work vs an impromptu discussion, etc, but they can all contribute in their own way) and I do think that being part of a community of learning should be reflected in grades, to a degree. It's true that some teachers just want you to play the game but I loved my kids who would pose "annoying" questions--they really got the class going and modeled independent thinking. But parts of playing the game, not sitting down and shutting up, but speaking up (asking questions, sharing writing, sharing comments/reactions, etc) are necessary for writers' workshop and learning. I think elementary and secondary are very different than say college, where it's just about two tests and an essay to show your mastery. I think the compulsory nature of lower education is part of this issue. Some kids need the explicit motivation to participate fully. I'm sure it can be mismanaged by some teachers. Anyway, I'm sure this is way off topic, sorry OP.
