If getting a B+ in a class teaches him he can't coast or slack, won't that ultimately be a good thing that will help him have better success in class in high school and college?
Only you have seen his work and know whether it was slipshod.
To the degree that the Science Olympiad is based on "the way they want to see it" and work being "pretty" or "beautiful" in addition to having the correct answer and all information being present, this may be valid grading criteria for use as a screener for participation in the Science Olympiad.
If the B+ was the result of not knowing the material, not studying, poor study habits, poor time management, or cavalier attitude, yes, he might use that grade as feedback to understand that something is not working and he needs to re-think his learning strategies.
IMO, if the B+ is for picayune things like penmanship, neatness, "pretty" or "beautiful" work, etc, what he may learn from this experience is to develop perfectionist tendencies. This type of grading can teach kids to become procrastinators... afraid to begin their projects, because they are afraid of making an error. This "socially prescribed perfectionism" can be related to a fixed mindset (as opposed to growth mindset). I'm specifically referring to the aspect or application of fixed mindset in which gifted kids may
stop taking appropriate risks in order to always be "right" or always be "smart" or never be "wrong", and this may work against them.
A lack of appropriate risk-taking is the OPPOSITE of what is needed to be an effective and resilient scientist with patience for reiterative work.
Or should I be worried that he might start do worse as the expectations grow?
Personally, I would be worried that the grading practices will undermine his motivation and internal drive. My concern is that the grading rubric may be constructed to provide "subjective" criteria which allow the teacher to create designer grades to lower the scores of some of the kids at the top in order to provide access to opportunity to kids who would not receive such high grades based on "objective" criteria.
Unfortunately, the goal under common core is equal outcomes. Teachers are evaluated and schools are rated/ranked by their ability to close gaps in their classrooms. This is often achieved by capping the growth (and opportunities) of kids at the top.
this kid, who has done two summers of Pre Med work at a local gifted academy and who is headed off to CTY's Intensive Studies course in Intro to Biomedical Science is feeling miserable because he's not even getting the opportunity to interview for Science Olympiad.
I would encourage him to:
- incorporate the feedback he received, as a good scientist must do,
- understand that scientists must follow documentation standards,
- look forward to his CTY course,
- be a good sport and wish his classmates well at the Science Olympiad,
- exhibit a positive attitude (athletes can be role models, as they may also miss out on competitions for a variety of reasons),
- understand that much of life is a competition (hopefully a friendly competition, but to a degree it is what we make it),
- practice planning ahead, starting early, making a "sloppy copy" before creating his final products for class. Basically learning to "play the game."
At the same time, I would keep an eye on future grading practices to determine whether your son's work is being fairly assessed, or whether the grading system seems rather arbitrary, subjective, and/or selectively applied... possibly with the purpose and effect of achieving quotas.
Showing work in Algebra is generally required. Others need to be able to follow it. The question remains - how "pretty" must it be?
