Procrastinators’ Utopia?

Have we stumbled into procrastinators’ utopia? Slackers’ heaven?  Based on our new ASFM policies of INCs without penalty for work not handed in, and Redos/Retakes for assessments, it would appear at first glance that we have.  Is this really the case?

As an educator for 20 years, I have seen myriad movements (always deemed “best practices”)—all with the best of intent, but inevitably replaced by yet another, often contradictory movement.  Our new policies coincide with a current trend in education to report out only on students’ abilities to master content and subject-specific skills (rather than including behavioral aspects as we have done in the past with dispositions and late penalties), and functions as a precursor to our eventual adoption of a Standards Based Grading system.  We now grade only the quality of the work itself, not whether you meet deadlines.  We allow multiple opportunities to display your mastery of subject matter and skills on assessments, taking into account only your best work.

These practices sound great on paper, but I think we have all seen some problems arise this past semester.  Many students approached the retake as the exam they actually studied for.  At points we had literally thousands of INCs in the high school—as apparently many students dismissed existing deadlines in favor of the impending December 1 final cutoff.  Perhaps most surprising was when our high-achieving students opted to forgo assignments in favor of sleep, then became overwhelmed by the outstanding work and, at times, just shut down.  As it turned out, a whole semester of learning cannot, in fact, be completed over Thanksgiving Break.  At least not well, or with any real learning occurring. In all cases, grades suffered as a result.

The fact is, there will always be students who take advantage of situations, who see the educational system as a game, and take multiple opportunities for success as ways to shirk responsibilities and cut corners.  Do we then continue our well-intended efforts to help students achieve and display mastery, to allow for growth over time, and to encourage personal accountability for their learning?  Or do we return to a more hard-nosed approach that embodies strict guidelines to force responsibility, assigns scores for aspects of personal character, and expects students to all achieve on the first try and in the same time frame?  

Personally, I struggle with the answer to this dilemma.  On the one hand, it is so important to meet the varying needs of individual students.  However, should we dismiss one of the basic tenants of the real world:  deadlines?  In my work, I am constantly faced with deadlines—from grade reporting dates to notices of employment intent (months before the school year is over!) to this very article.  In all of these cases, there is no leniency for my “late work.”  Additionally, I have never been awarded a “do over” for a poorly handled job interview or shoddily written letter of recommendation.  I am expected to put in my best effort by a prescribed deadline.  So are we properly servicing students by not holding them to the same future expectations?  Or, as we have believed, are we providing students with a better training ground, hoping that they will appreciate these opportunities and improve themselves as a result?

Perhaps in 10 years ASFM will embrace a new educational model. But for now, we will forge ahead, hoping that the majority of our students continue to benefit from these practices; and that those students who approach their education as a game will then realize that, if so, we are only the coaches, and no championship has ever been won by a team that did not put forth their best effort each and every day.