Okay, the party line on the "temporary zero" thing is that it "let's students see what will happen" and keeps them motivated "to keep up with coursework."
Well, I can see how that could work for some students-- but I can also see how TOXIC the practice is for others-- particularly for cheetahs, let's just say.
As for working at your own pace and in whatever order seems fine-- well, not-so-much since Pearson took over, actually. My real beef with this zero policy is that it probably just isn't appropriate for the TOP 2-3% of students in the first place. They've never--ever-- done anything to suggest to ANYONE that they are unaware of the consequences of not doing the work, or that they might not get through it all on time. So yeah, I don't understand why it is necessary to do this in the first place. I also don't understand what purpose it serves for the teachers themselves, but there must be something, or they wouldn't bother.
Computer v. Human grading-- well, it's sort of BOTH. That is, mostly autograded, but often the teacher has to check through it and fix any stoooooopid stuff like the fact that the computer may not understand that
"two" or "2" are both acceptable answers to a question inquiring about an integer number of items, that questions 4 and 8 on that quiz have both been "invalidated" from on high and "any response" will lead to credit (my DD's answer to such questions is invariably "42," and she's chagrined that her teacher seems a bit humorless
though I suspect it's the language barrier at work. He's a nice enough guy. ). In other words, I'm more than a touch concerned that it's impacting the tenor of how she is interacting with the material,
which she otherwise LOVES. He also grades ~50% of exams because those are extended response, at least in AP/honors.
But yeah-- it's a math class. Seriously, how much work can this possibly BE?
