Kevin Blissett: Out of the Cave

There is a growing movement in many U.S. schools not to assign failing grades to students not meeting minimum standards. A Fox News story highlights the pros and cons of this approach.

I am inclined to oppose “failing” primary grade students and believe that social promotion, except in extreme cases, is in the best interests of the child. On the other hand, I’m not sure we are teaching older children what they need to survive in the real world by allowing multiple extended opportunities to reach learning goals. And results are showing that very few of these at-risk students are taking advantage when given the opportunity.  

It would seem to be important that students rise to the bar within a reasonable time period rather than having educators and/or parents lowering the bar to meet the learner. Students know when the bar is being lowered for them, and I believe that psychologically it’s just as potentially harmful to them as getting an “H,” “U,” or “E.” This approach reminds me of folks who say teachers should mark papers in green rather than red ink so the test or essay doesn’t appear to have been “bled on.”

The work place has its own performance standards and expectations. Students who have not been held to clear standards in school would seem to be likely not to adhere to them in their work life and there suffer more serious repercussions. Here are some excerpts from the article:

While administrators and teachers say the policies provide hope for underperforming students, critics say that lowering or altering education standards is not the answer. They point to case studies in Grand Rapids, Mich., where public high schools are using the “H” grading system this year and, according to reports, only 16 percent of first-semester “H” grades became passing grades in the second semester.

A representative from a parents’ and teachers’ group argues that no-fail policies will stem student drop-out rates:

 

But with the nation’s high school dropout rate hovering around 30 percent, Sherri Johnson, director of programs for the National Parent Teacher Association, said school districts should consider any measures possible to stop low-performing students from quitting school.

“Students ought to be assessed on how they master whatever skills they’re being assessed on, and one grade cannot achieve that,” Johnson told FOXNews.com. “If a teacher is not teaching to different learning styles, a student is always behind the 8-ball.”

 

If I’m following Ms. Johnson’s line of reasoning, if students meriting failing grades do not receive them, the drop-out rate will be reduced (presumably because the “failing” students are the same ones dropping out). This reasoning seems to be rather tenuous. Are all drop-outs failing their classes? Will getting an “H” rather than an “F,” for example, raise the students’ self-esteem enough to keep them in school, assuming Ms. Johnson is correct? She further seems to believe that failing grades are given in some sort of one-time vacuum and are not indicative of a student’s yearly performance. In the last sentence, she appears to be blaming teachers for drop-out rates because they are meeting the “learning styles” of the students. How does she draw that conclusion?

Michael Petrilli, a former U.S. Department of Education official suggests an opposing viewpoint:

“This is clearly about dumbing down expectations for our students,” Petrilli told FOXNews.com. “Some of these children are just a few years away from being in the workforce, in college or even in the military, and in none of those environment will they be coddled like they are in these programs.”

Petrilli said the policy also sends the wrong message to students.

“If you’re getting a zero, that usually means you didn’t turn in the assignment or do the job correctly,” he said. “All this does is create cynicism among educators and send signals to students that the education system is not serious about achievement.”

Photo by zoomar