Large California school districts eliminate ‘D’ and ‘F’ grades

Nithavela · Dec 25, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
That would depend on the material they learn, no?

Lol, I have often wondered about the 'teacher of the year' sort of thing. Maybe it's a good thing some teachers don't get the material across very well!

Sounds like the number of students who get a passing or failing grade and the quality of the education system isnt very well connected.

Mark Quayle · Dec 25, 2021

Nithavela said:
Sounds like the number of students who get a passing or failing grade and the quality of the education system isnt very well connected.

That goes without saying. However, the number of students who don't learn what IS worth learning, is also an indicator.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 25, 2021

Nithavela said:
So if everyone learns the material and everyone gets a passing grade, that would be a sign of a good education system?

If it was really just about making sure "everyone gets a passing grade", then why are D's being phased out? D is still a passing grade. Is it really about helping people who need it, or making sure that nobody graduates with anything lower than a 2.0 "so that nobody feels bad"?

One of the big issues with eliminating D's and F's is that not every D/F comes from a place of "someone who needs a little additional help" or "bad teachers.

I think, at the very least, the aspect of "students not taking it seriously" needs to at least be acknowledged.

I got a D/F or two on a few homework assignments in my high school days, it wasn't because I had a bad teacher or because I didn't understand the material. It's because for certain homework assignments, I just didn't feel like spending the time to do them and had other things I wanted to go do (like loiter at the mall or go to a party), so I did the math in my head, realized that "this one assignment being tanked isn't going to drop my grade for the quarter by any significant amount...so I'm just not going to do it, or just scribble a bunch of stuff in so I can get to the party quicker"

Under the described system, I could've just blown off the assignment for the weekend, and then they would just give me a mulligan on Monday.

FireDragon76 · Dec 26, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
Between that and the chatter about "cancelling student debt", I smell a STEM shortage on the horizon in the next 10 years. (or just a shortage of any applicable/useful degrees conferred during that time period)

I get that there's a lot that can be revamped and re-tooled with regards to how public school systems work, and the "for-profit" college model has its drawbacks.

But a "grades don't matter" sentiment, combined with even more people trying to get degrees in Journalism and Visual/Performing Arts - degrees with a poor job placement rate post-graduation even prior to the pandemic (because they know the government will cancel the debt if they don't make it) isn't what I'd call a good recipe for a great economy in 2030.

As it currently stands, we already had hugely disproportionate numbers of kids signing on for degrees in what are, largely, non-viable fields that have very poor prospects after graduation
Bachelor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2017-18

For example in that chart from NCES, 80k degree conferred per year in "Visual and Performing Arts", a field in which, according to the bureau of labor statistics, only has 2,700 new openings per year - much of it being part-time or "gig work".

Another one would be Journalism, 92,000 degree conferred per year...the prospect outlook for that? The Bureau of Labor Statistics is forecasting the following:
"46,000 new jobs added to that sector the period of the next 10 years."

...and that was with the prospect of huge debt after graduation. You remove the debt aspect, I suspect you'll see even more kids signing on for frivolous degrees like that.

Not everybody has aptitudes for STEM fields. Furthermore, I don't understand how this impacts STEM at all. Are you trying to imply that other subject areas don't have actual academic rigor?

FireDragon76 · Dec 26, 2021

Nithavela said:
Both of these degrees are very valuable for self-employment, especially in the modern, information and communication driven industries. Think graphic design for computer games, blog writing, vlogging, influencing. People going into those courses have less opportunities in writing applications for open jobs, but lots of venues for entrepeneurship.

Sadly, many students lack financial literacy, so the crippling student loan debt they will be burdened with isn't really a push factor away from "frivolous degrees".

I also don't think something like journalism is a frivolous degree. Isn't the complaint that journalism isn't high quality enough and only out for cashing in on the newest fad? Well, you're not getting anything else if you boil down the relevance of a study field to "how can it make money". And our world would be very grey and boring without visual and performance arts. You also wouldn't want to buy the newest thing dreamed up by the stem fields because those guys aren't very good at marketing, hmm?

The journalist and author, Christ Hedges, frequently points out that attacking the Humanities has been part of the agenda of the Right for decades. Because the Humanities are a necessary component of liberal democracy.

Nithavela · Dec 26, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
The journalist and author, Christ Hedges, frequently points out that attacking the Humanities has been part of the agenda of the Right for decades. Because the Humanities are a necessary component of liberal democracy.

It's also quite usefull in defending the obscene debt slavery of the USA, by pretending that anyone suffering from student loans should have just picked a more practical subject.

disciple Clint · Dec 26, 2021

Nithavela said:
How many students should get a failing grade, in your opinion?

how about just the ones that fail, that would be fair wouldn't it?

Mark Quayle · Dec 26, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
The journalist and author, Christ Hedges, frequently points out that attacking the Humanities has been part of the agenda of the Right for decades. Because the Humanities are a necessary component of liberal democracy.

To be fair, to say, "attacking the Humanities has been part of the agenda of the Right for decades", is to overgeneralize and misunderstand the POV of the Right. Conservatives have no beef with true art and beauty, nor do they wish to destroy or even to underrate philosophy and so many other things.

(A quick Google search: The humanities include the academic disciplines of philosophy, religion, languages and literatures, linguistics, history, and the arts. The arts include the visual arts, drama, and music. The humanities are those academic disciplines that study human culture.)

Hedges, and apparently you, and from what I have heard from so many liberals, conservatives are a bunch of insensitive (and, usually, ignorant) oafs, that are all about hunting and gathering. But in truth, what conservatives have a problem with is the humanities being taught or promoted at the cost of basic subjects, and the perversion of the humanities, as though there was no objective truth or true beauty vs ugliness.

We see a problem in the notion that humans are the perveyors of fact.

FenderTL5 · Dec 26, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
High schoolers who fail a test or homework assignment can get a do-over or more time to complete the work..

The private Christian school I attended my sophomore year of high school in the late 70s was similar. One had to make an '80' or above on a test to pass a subject segment.
If the test was failed, you were allowed a do-over. If you failed a second time that subject section had to be repeated and the test given again.. repeat until passed.

With 80 as the minimum there were no Ds nor Fs. There were only As, Bs, Cs and incompletes.

Nithavela · Dec 26, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
To be fair, to say, "attacking the Humanities has been part of the agenda of the Right for decades", is to overgeneralize and misunderstand the POV of the Right. Conservatives have no beef with true art and beauty, nor do they wish to destroy or even to underrate philosophy and so many other things.

(A quick Google search: The humanities include the academic disciplines of philosophy, religion, languages and literatures, linguistics, history, and the arts. The arts include the visual arts, drama, and music. The humanities are those academic disciplines that study human culture.)

Hedges, and apparently you, and from what I have heard from so many liberals, conservatives are a bunch of insensitive (and, usually, ignorant) oafs, that are all about hunting and gathering. But in truth, what conservatives have a problem with is the humanities being taught or promoted at the cost of basic subjects, and the perversion of the humanities, as though there was no objective truth or true beauty vs ugliness.

We see a problem in the notion that humans are the perveyors of fact.

What are "true arts" and what is not?

rambot · Dec 26, 2021

As a teacher the no fail system chaps me. HARD.

I don't have a problem with flexibility with assignments and due dates but if the work is of low quality it should fail.

My district has had no fail for quite a while. It's frustrating to feel handcuffed when discussing student results.

comana · Dec 26, 2021

FenderTL5 said:
The private Christian school I attended my sophomore year of high school in the late 70s was similar. One had to make an '80' or above on a test to pass a subject segment.
If the test was failed, you were allowed a do-over. If you failed a second time that subject section had to be repeated and the test given again.. repeat until passed.

With 80 as the minimum there were no Ds nor Fs. There were only As, Bs, Cs and incompletes.

I actually like this concept. Nothing below a B should be considered passing. Keep working on it till competency at a B level is reached. Unfortunately, this is impractical in public schools.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 26, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
Not everybody has aptitudes for STEM fields. Furthermore, I don't understand how this impacts STEM at all. Are you trying to imply that other subject areas don't have actual academic rigor?

While it's true that "not everyone has the aptitude for it" (that'd be technically true for any profession), quite a few people have the aptitude for it, they just choose something else that's not as viable.

For instance, per the NCES data I posted earlier.

Just a few examples:
78k degrees conferred in Computer Science
88k conferred in Performing Arts

I'd say that higher percentage of people have the intelligence/aptitude/abilities required to get a decent job as a software developer as opposed to being a successful actor or a famous singer.

And you can definitely see in the charts where the patterns have been shifting over the past few decades.

The number of people going for things like performance arts and journalism exploded in the 90's.

Part of it as a supply/demand issue (just about every company has a need for things like IT people, Accounting/Finance, Marketing/Sales), gainful careers in the performing arts and journalism are much harder to come by.

The other part is that those fields are very much a "feast for famine" environment, there's not as many tiers or levels of those jobs where a decent living can still be achieved.

To sort of highlight what I mean by that...

Take someone who's in the field of accounting/finance/economics. One doesn't have to be a Janet Yellen/Warren Buffett/Paul Krugman level person to still make a decent living in that field. Those uber-high paying opportunities exist, but there are plenty of "rungs on the ladder" for people who aren't quite at their level to still make a good living.

If you're an economics major who's in the 80th percentile in terms of skill/aptitude, you may not be able to be the next Secretary of the Treasury or CEO of a Wall Street investment firm, but you can still be a CPA, hold a higher level position in the accounting department of a private company, etc...

If you're a tech person who's in the 80th percentile, you may never be the next Chief Technology Officer for Microsoft or Apple, but you could still be a database administrator

The same isn't true for performing arts, there aren't a lot of "mid-level" positions in those fields. It's very much a "you're either the absolute best of the best, and wildly successful" or "you're a starving artist" dichotomy.

I think since the mid-90's, people have gotten some unrealistic expectations, and as a result, have tried to gravitate toward the "sexier" "flashy" professions.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 26, 2021

comana said:
I actually like this concept. Nothing below a B should be considered passing. Keep working on it till competency at a B level is reached. Unfortunately, this is impractical in public schools.

I don't know how practical that's going to be.

Everyone has different things they're good at.

A person can be a borderline guru at one subject, and be a "C-student" in another subject.

For instance, it's probably quite feasible to assume that there's several people who are very proficient in math & science, but would do very poorly in a public speaking or debate class, and the inverse would be true as well. Not everyone is going to be a Neil DeGrasse Tyson where they're excellent at both.

Issuing grades that pretend that they are (or giving them an infinite amount of do-overs until they get a B) isn't particularly helpful. And I can see where that could eventually backfire.

There is a difference between a person who can pick up the ideas and concepts right away vs. a person who needs 5x the amount of time and 15 do-overs in order to accomplish the same result.

That's certainly not how it's going to work in the real world when there are things such as deadlines and a high level of importance attached to the concept of "getting it right on the first try".

comana · Dec 26, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
I don't know how practical that's going to be.

Everyone has different things they're good at.

A person can be a borderline guru at one subject, and be a "C-student" in another subject.

For instance, it's probably quite feasible to assume that there's several people who are very proficient in math & science, but would do very poorly in a public speaking or debate class, and the inverse would be true as well. Not everyone is going to be a Neil DeGrasse Tyson where they're excellent at both.

Issuing grades that pretend that they are (or giving them an infinite amount of do-overs until they get a B) isn't particularly helpful. And I can see where that could eventually backfire.

There is a difference between a person who can pick up the ideas and concepts right away vs. a person who needs 5x the amount of time and 15 do-overs in order to accomplish the same result.

That's certainly not how it's going to work in the real world when there are things such as deadlines and a high level of importance attached to the concept of "getting it right on the first try".

No doubt. It is not practical for all subjects or all students, but perhaps for the basics at least? I really like the Montessori model for primary school.

MehGuy · Dec 26, 2021

Huh? Is this designed to help artificially close the racial grades gap?

I personally have no problem with students redoing tests and assignments in order to attain a better grade. As long as you are learning and growing, I think you should be rewarded. Depends on what they mean by "incomplete". I don't think we should just be passing students who cannot do a satisfactory job in the course work. The reality is that some students just cannot cut it intellectually. Not everyone needs to go to college, some people are better suited at trade jobs (which can often make decent money).

I know there is an IQ chart with professions and the average IQ needed to be competent in any given field. My IQ is only slightly above average. Realistically I'm going to have trouble with the higher intellect jobs like scientist, mathematician or lawyer. Perhaps I might be able to squeeze my way in if I studied ultra-hard, but it will be even harder (or next to impossible) for those who are below the bell curve. I shouldn't be able to just take classes and automatically pass. Even if I give my all. It just cheapens the system. I think we need to stop babying people and acknowledge that not everyone is equal. Provide students with realistic goals and pathways. While it's not all about intellect, often times it is a real barrier. If a student with lower intellect has other qualities like being extra studious that allows him/her to competently complete and understand classes that are statistically above his or her IQ level so, be it. But we shouldn't just be artificially messing with the system in order to make the students appear more equal than they actually are.

dogs4thewin · Dec 26, 2021

SavedByGrace3 said:
In a way they have been doing this for years. My fellow students in college were more than a little upset because I would always ruin the "curve." A few of us would consistently ace the tests and projects, while the rest of the class would get C, D, or F. So, the instructor would have to grade on a curve. Not fair, I would end up with a 110% grade that would never get translated into the A, B, C, D, F report card system. Those that did the work did not stand out as they should while those who for whatever reason failed got bumped up. So, yes, they have been doing this for years. With the same results.

Yup I got a few 100+ grades in college for that reason not a lot though.

hedrick · Dec 26, 2021

rambot said:
As a teacher the no fail system chaps me. HARD.

I don't have a problem with flexibility with assignments and due dates but if the work is of low quality it should fail.

My district has had no fail for quite a while. It's frustrating to feel handcuffed when discussing student results.

As I read the story, they do have a fail. It's called incomplete. They're not giving passing grades to students that don't pass.

I'd like to know more about the implications. Does that mean the student has to do it again, hopefully with help? The claim is that this is part of "competency based education." In theory that means that to graduate you need to be able to do certain things, and a passing grade indicates it. Does that mean you don't graduate if you don't make up incompletes in core subjects? If so this could actually be tougher than giving people Ds.

MehGuy · Dec 26, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
Students who don’t ever finish the assignments or who fail the final exam would earn an “incomplete,” according to EdSource.

Ah, so this means the classes are possible to fail? While I do not think the idea is inherently bad, I do worry this is just being done or proposed to be done in order to attempt close the unsightly grade gaps between different groups. I could see this as a way of giving students a chance to game the system. If they fail, they'll see the answers they have wrong for example in a multiple-choice question and given the same test with the same questions to try again... and maybe again until they get a more equalized grade.

MehGuy · Dec 26, 2021

Wonder if the thought behind this is that "incomplete" is a more sanitized letter than "F" for fail. You're not a failure... you just didn't complete the course. Your ability is undecided in a sense. Also, the less grades in a ranking the more everyone appears as a whole to be closer together.

Large California school districts eliminate ‘D’ and ‘F’ grades

our world is happy and mundane

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

our world is happy and mundane

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

our world is happy and mundane

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Veteran

A member of the less neotenous sex..

dog lover

Senior Veteran

A member of the less neotenous sex..

A member of the less neotenous sex..

Similar threads