School District Drops 'D' Grades
Students in one New Jersey school district will no longer be able to squeak by in class after the Morris County School Board approved dropping the D grade. Beginning in the fall students who don't get a C or higher will get an F on their report card. "I'm tired of kids coming to school and not learning and getting credit for it," said Superintendent Larrie Reynolds in a Daily Record report.
How about just not giving credit for D's? Am I missing something here?
If done the way TFS says, it's a good thing.
The problem is that teachers don't want to fail students, so the D students will get Cs instead of Fs.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"We suck at educating our kids, so we'll just change the standards!"
Isn't that a bit like covering up a gaping chest wound with a shirt and pretending like nothing is wrong?
Living With a Nerd
I never understood this, if a student is substandard then they are substandard. If this superintendent knew what the definition of average was he would realise that, by definition, some students HAVE to fall below a 'C' mark. Teaching everybody to a minimum standard is a very noble cause but it isn't possible for everyone you teach to live up to that standard; so instead we end up with these bitter drop-outs who are essentially labled as unemployable just because they can't tell you what the capital of Nebraska is.
In the last days of this congressional session, our elected reps faced two urgent spending requests. One was for ongoing combat in Afghanistan. The other was to keep several thousand public school teachers from being laid off in the fall. One of those got funded.
But, sure, dick around with the grading scale and pretend it'll fix things.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40137.html
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_teach28.44ac093.html
I wish they would implement more trade schools. It would be nice to move people that fail at academic pursuits into a high school designed to teach them a marketable trade like being a mechanic or car. Just because someone doesnt do well in math, science, english and/or social studies doesn't mean they don't have some other talent that would benefit society.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Do people not understand that a normal distribution would be a bell-curve? Some will get A's and some will get F's a few more will get B's and D's the majority will get C's. If you are shooting for everyone getting A's,B's,and C's you are possibly over-challenging those that would normally not achieve C+ and possibly causing them to fail instead. Plus, all of the A students are being even more underchallenged in an effort to put everyone on one side of the curve.
I mean, from what I understand, schools just plain do not hold anyone back because they fail...they just continue to promote them on to the next grade regardless of their level of learning the material.
Can't hurt Junior's self esteem you know...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
and start accepting the fact that intelligence is not evenly distributed. Not in groups, not even in individuals. People of average or below average are never going to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. They're not going to compete for jobs in high-paying, intelligence and education-heavy fields because you cannot educate a mind of low capacity.
The fact is that our policies are being set by a bunch of arrogant elitists who think that if they cram down enough education, they can make a clean, office-dwelling, never-get-your-hands-dirty, middle class hipster society and outsource all of the menial labor, manufacturing and other jobs that people of average and below average intelligence used to do. Well, you can't because most people aren't cut out for that work, and our society cannot continue to maintain the facade of so many people who would have been working in the fields, working in factories, etc. being middle and upper-middle class professionals.
Part of the reason we are so close to national bankruptcy is that we don't respect hard-working blue collar workers. Whether they are digging ditches or doing intricate plumbing work, their work is as necessary as 95% of the white collar labor force. How about instead of cramming down unnecessary education, people start actually respecting each other for what they do with their lives rather than a bunch of pieces of paper for diploma mills like the average high school or college.
I grew up in Morris County, and am a bit bewildered by this article, given that there's no Morris County school board. This particular issue pertains to Mount Olive -- a town of 26,000 people with a 5000-student school district, not the entire county.
Not sure how they butchered these details from the source article.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Why the hate on the AP program? You dont have to be "affluent" to be in it, you just have to do well in school. The fees for the tests can be waived or reduced if your family is low income. Does your hate maybe stem from not liking the type of people that are in the program? That's understandable, some are pricks, I know b/c I was in many AP classes in HS. However, dont label everyone in the program as such, it makes you look like a douche. AP classes are a great way to get college credit before college, so don't knock the program itself.
Don't forget Garfield High School in Los Angeles and the amazing mathematics teacher Jaime Escalante who, through dint of sheer will and incredible teaching ability, demonstrated that students from East LA could do very, very well in calculus, many even passing the harder BC version of the AP test. These students were not affluent in the least, just inspired to excellence by an incredible individual.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Ok, I can't say how this works in other countries since I'm from the US.(And I'll probably get marked as a troll by some stupid moderator. Oh well, the benefits of having Karma to burn.) That being said there's nothing "magical" about 70%. I mean I understand how you go to school for over 12 years and they always use 70% so you automatically assume that "Oh of course 70% is a C" and that no other number can be a C. The most obvious example of this not being true is the SAT. Average is 500 out of 800 which is 62.5%. What this means is that the person writing the test can make it harder or easier to get alot of points even if they are testing on the entire subject area. (And theoretically any question is "answerable.") They can move the average up or down as they see fit by including more or fewer tricky questions while still testing in the target field. The reason to do this is that if you have a bunch of grades all pinned up at 95%+ you basically can't tell which student is really better than another. You also can see what a student doesn't know. (I mean you could just make the test really easy and then everybody gets 100% ) Think of it this way. If I tell you it's 30 outside is it hot? What you should say to me is you can't tell since you don't have a scale to determine what that 30 actually means. If I asked is it hot when it's 30C you'd know yes it is and 30F is cold. Without some scale to tell you what a number means you can't tell. The same is true for percentages in education. Without a scale to help you interpret what 70% means you can't tell if that's a good or shitty score. (The professor could have made the test such that only a great student could get above 50%. Note, yes I've had courses like that. I had a physics course where the prof made it so hard 30% was passing which shows that yes a professor can put average anywhere he likes.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.