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
