Minister refutes idea of ‘no-fail’ policy

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/11/2010 (5498 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Read Education Minister Nancy Allan’s lips — the so-called “no-fail” policy does not exist.

And pay attention, kids — the teacher can dock you marks for late assignments, and nail you as hard as a zero for plagiarism.

“If expectations are not met, there will be consequences,” Allan declared Wednesday after announcing a beefing-up of provincial policies on student assessment and evaluation.

The new policies reinforce that principals decide after consultation with parents, teachers and resource staff whether a student will be promoted or held back, they give teachers the authority to dock marks for late assignments, and they lay down the law that any form of plagiarism is outlawed.

“This is something that is long overdue,” said Allan. All the groups consulted, Allan said, “want our system to have a high standard, to reflect the real world.”

Nothing has changed in the ways in which principals decide whether a student fails or advances, Allan said. “The problem was, there was a perception we had a no-fail policy. There basically is no no-fail policy.

The changes take effect Feb. 1 to coincide with the start of the second semester of high school. School divisions must amend their own policies by September to detail how they’ll spell out these changes to students and parents.

Allan has ditched a 1997 Tory government guideline that had come under spirited attack — gone is the directive that teachers should not dock marks for late or missing work.

“It’s strictly up to the teacher,” Allan said. “They have to give clear expectations” about deadlines, she said, but teachers ‘absolutely’ decide what penalty they’ll impose for late work.

“That’s what is most important to us, the teacher works with that student on a daily basis. It’s definitely focused around marks, to deduct marks for late or missing assignments.”

There was always a policy reference to not tolerating plagiarism, she said, but the new policy is much more extensive and tougher in its language.

“We’re really assuring the integrity of the system,” Allan said.

Teachers are happy with the changes, said Manitoba Teachers’ Society president Pat Isaak.

“The key has to be what best enables the student to be successful in school,” Isaak said. “How do we best support that child?”

Isaak said that Allan has recognized the role teachers need to play in decision-making, “[it’s] recognition that the teacher knows the student best. “Teachers need to be able to say to students, ‘There are consequences for your actions,’ ” she said.

Teachers can use their discretion and conclude that a student has a valid reason for a late assignment, Isaak pointed out.

On promotion and retention, “She made it clear that the ultimate decision for promotion rests with the principal, but that decision has to be made in consultation with the classroom teacher and the parents,” said Isaak.

“It’s a real recognition of the voice of the teacher in making decisions.”

The Manitoba School Boards Association was not yet ready to comment Wednesday.

nick.martin@freepress.mb.ca

No social promotion

The revised provincial assessment and evaluation policy on academic responsibility, honesty, and promotion/retention is posted at www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/docs/policy_k12/assess_policyk12.pdf

Here’s a little of what it says:

“Divisions may not adopt a policy that mandates student promotion regardless of achievement. Students should be placed in the grade that is appropriate for their curricular, cognitive, social, and emotional learning needs.”

“Promotion decisions rest with the principal, who consults with teachers, parents, and other specialists as appropriate. The decision is based on the evidence of the student’s progress and growth, and considers the grade level placement that would support and extend the student’s learning. Whether the decision is to retain or to promote a struggling student, the school must address that student’s learning needs. For example, simply having a student retained in a grade to repeat all the work done the previous year will not necessarily address the student’s learning needs and result in success. In a similar manner, simply promoting a struggling student, without adequate supports, will not lead to success.”