I guess no one is around.

Didn't report cards always have something like that? I remember that in school in BC.

I don't see a point at that grade.  In elementary I had two sets of grades - a number and letter, the letter was related to effort and behaviour.  In jr. high there was still a place for comments.

Jr. high marks affect what courses someone can take in high school.  I don't think behaviour should be directly affecting that.  If behaviour is a major issue, schoolwork is probably already affected.

That would make my daughter set a goal of a achieving the best possible rating. It would cause my son to set a goal of achieving the lowest rating in recorded history.

Kimmio, there was nothing like that in my school. In my elementary school, we would get grades of "excellent," "good" or needs improvement. In high school it was both letter grades (A, B, C+, C, P(ass) or F) and effort marks (from 1 for excellent effort to 4 for little to no effort at all).

Hi Crazyheart,

Perhaps a new system for an age old problem.

I remember comments such as, "not working to potential."  Which is really a polite way to say, "your kid is sloughing."

Or, "could pay more attention to classwork."  Which was really a polite way to say, "your kid needs to shut-up in my class."

Both of which are comments speaking to the student's behaviour and since the comments were so generic they represented a behaviour rating.

These were simple one line comments that might or might not appear throughout our report cards up until graduation.

When the comments went beyond the one or two lines dedicated to every subject it tended to mean that your behaviour was on track to get you tossed somewhere.

I remember pulling down a 96 in history and reading the comment "Could improve with more effort."  Then I looked at the class average and thought hmmmmm maybe the teacher got stuck in a rut.

My mom, thankfully, looked at the grades first before skipping to the comments.  She only took the comments seriously if they appeared to be consistent with the mark awarded.  If that 96 had been a 66 I would have had a new homework regimen.

My mom rarely went to meet the creature . . .um, meet the teacher nights to meet my teacher, I was by no means a problem student.  There was the odd evening when after having talked with my sister's teachers she would pop in on one of mine in order not to feel like a failure as a parent.  My sister didn't really care much for school.

As was reflected in the behaviour ratings that she brought home.

Grace and peace to you.

John

My real concern here is that behaviour can not be reduced to a number or a letter. There are nuances of tendencies and interpersonal skills that don't lend well to the grading system, and require extra explanation.

Yes, those "not paying attention" or "underperforming" explanations are generic, but at least they tell you something.

Hi chansen,

The letters or numbers always have a key.  When you find the letter or number on the key you get a paragraph of not paying attention or underperforming type comments.

My whole point is that behaviour rating is not new as far as school reports go.  It is most likely taking a new form.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Rating behavior would be tough to do justly.  One of my kids regualrly got comments about not being co-operative in class.  Truth was - he was bored rigid by the work being offered and could easily do it while balancing on his head. Another got comments about inattention - hardly surprising as he had ADHD and the complaining teachers refused to adapt their expectations for this fact.  The teachers who adapted got  good results.  One child got rave reviews but wasn't learning anything much.

Of course, these ratings won't take into account the 'little' realities like - the teacher just doesn't like that student, or vice versa.  Nor is it likely to adjust to recognise a problem the student is having out of class - taking responsibility for the care and nurturing of younger siblings because a parent is dealing with a terminal disease etc. 

There are often reasons behind behaviour problems. Has the child had enough to eat? Is there something going on physically or emotionally with the child? One of the children I am working with currently, for example, simply cannot be quiet and still for more than 5 seconds, unless he either has a small toy in his hand or, preferably, a pencil and piece of paper. Give him one of those things and he's the calmest kid around. 

Behaviour rating is very dependant upon the attitude of the teacher.  For many people a well behaved child is one that fits in a mold - average.  A creative child is apt to be messy.  A bright child might have difficulty getting her thoughts down on paper (I always knew more words than I could spell).   A child who is bullied might develop distracting nervous habits, or appear frightened or guilty.  A bully might be confident, self-assured and 'shows leadership'.   the well dressed - confident - good looking children will almost always come out on top.   Please, no marks for 'behaviour'.

My attitude has a student was always, and remains, that, unless my behaviour is openly disrespectful or insubordinate, better get on with your job teaching.

I remain bothered most by control freaks. If you have attendance policies, for instance, you'd better be able to justify them; I do not willingly submit to boredom.

Does anyone remember when teachers could say just about anything on a report card?
The tragedy was (is?) these negative judgements followed the student all through school, passing those negative comments to each teacher every year. That in itself sets kids up for preconceived bias.
I agree with Kay that teachers can easily reflect their bias - unjustly- against a kid that isn't liked personally. Potentially very damaging to the kid's success and self-esteem.
Hopefully there aren't the profoundly offensive comments written very thoughtlessly about pupils that were acceptable when I was a kid. Teachers aren't behaviorists and shouldn't be permitted to evaluate student's behavior in such an indelible way. Report cards should be reviewed routinely and any comments about behaviour should pass supervision given the potential impact on a student's life.

By the way, it was common back in the day to refer to students as "sloppy", "lazy", "slow" etc. Awful.

Here is a link that explains it a bit more....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/behaviour-ratings-added-to-high-school-report-cards-1.2055514

Actually I feel that this has potential to help.

Regards

Rita

Thanks Rita!

Seeing that just strengthens my opinion though.  My productivity in class was often teacher dependent.  Grades 7-9 in math we were often given worksheets.  I finished ahead of time.  Some teachers gave me more challenging projects to do, others would let me work ahead a little while but then instead of a few classes in a row with nothing to do I would have a month.  I could get some work done, but it wasn't like I could have a computer in class to type a paper or something.

By high school the good teachers didn't always teach :)  They let us figure things out for ourselves.  The productivity in terms of learning was high, but the output would have been much lower compared to classes where students didn't have to figure that out for themselves.  Sometimes both types of teaching occurred within one classroom.

Some teachers don't deserve respect.  My health comes before staying in a classroom.  I don't think grades should ever reflect that sort of thing.  Comments on a report card don't affect courses that could be taken, acceptance into schools, scholarships, etc.  Grades do.

Half a century ago, at a violent "traditions"-bound boarding school, we were used to being caned and getting generally venemous comments on our report cards which had a space for "behaviour".

I think the "masters" must have sat around the staffroom competitively venting to produce the bitterest entries of the year. Maybe they had a whole collection of them and drew randomly from a hat.

I still remember being identified as a "impudent, nose-picking idler"; I was charged with being "antagonistic to every civility" and, on another occasion,  "saved only by sloth and idiocy from deeper delinquencey"…  sometimes the comments seemed totally unrelated to the kid. I remember a tiresome goody-goody two shoes who sat beside me one year being described as having a "sinister criminality of spirit". 

Even my parents found the "behaviour" comments amusing. Many, like those above, I've remembered all this time and still give me a laugh. At the time, they were water off so many ducks' backs… it was the canings that kept us in line, sort of.

Pre-teen and young teen boys who have any worthwhile strength of character are going to rebel at any discipline and conformity. And so they should. They really need to be physically stretched through puberty and somehow infected with curiosity so that they learn for themselves despite adult attempts to focus them on a curriculum. All through the teen years, curiosity beats a curriculum hands down any day, every time… for boys.

I remember one or two teachers who were very good at tricking us into discovery and energetic out-of-class learning by teasing our capacities for fascination and curiosity. One got us working very determinedly, independently and competitively on entries for a national inter-school sciences exhibition. I won the regonal level award in 1963 — the year he said I was "saved by sloth". No way would I have been "told" what I needed to know. And an approving report card would have drained my rebel energy.

At the time, I thought it was "me" that did that despite the hateful system. Years on, I realised it was the brilliant teacher who somehow focused my rebellion. It was a research-based ecology study about a particular food-chain, so it meant lots of field trips. He'd (apparently grudgingly) get me out of school to spend time there on my own… the perfect escape, and it was fascinating!

The whole concept of education has shifted. It's co-educational and it's curriculum-constrained. There's usually little physical exercise and exertion and a kind of notional egalitarianism prevails in relations between teachers and students. Rote memory is rarely required and I don't think attention spans are expected to last more than minutes.

It seems a little erratic but I do think it's vastly better than the violence, intimidation, blind obedience and abuse I experienced.