The party line in our school district is that the kids are graded against the teacher's expectations for them. So if she is performing as well as the teacher thinks she possibly can, she gets a 3. If she were performing better than that, well, the teacher would have higher expectations of her, and she would still get a 3.
To state the obvious, this is highly
subjective. A more
objective means is needed for communicating how much of the standards or objectives for the grade level the student has mastered, whether the curriculum and learning environment have resulted in incremental progress/growth (or stagnation), and identifying the appropriate curriculum placement to facilitate growth.
It sounds like an indefensibly un-informative grading system. How do they explain it? Do they cite a research study or empirical evidence which has named this as best practice?
