Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Yep. By college, they know this doesn't fly. I teach incoming freshman and they adjust fine to the stricter grading policies. You don't have to start as you mean to go. Kids adjust to new standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Exactly. Those who fail to see these are detached from reality of schools in this current state of affairs. They are too idealistic, or maybe they've only ever stepped foot inside Oakton and Langley. The majority of students need lifestyle learning like communication, family sciences, and personal finance along with trade skills.

Great the old, there is no reason to educate the lower classes approach.

NP - No, but as an actual person who is in the trenches every day a kid who isn't coming to school and is failing to turn in numerous assignments is going to get zero life benefit from sitting in detention memorizing trig identities. All it is going to teach that kid (wealthy or poor, 1st generation immigrant or long time Fairfax elite) is that school is stupid. "When am I ever going to use this?" shouldn't be a question because we should be teaching relevant material to these kids--and sorry, law of cosines isn't relevant to the majority of kids.

I don't have this issue with my trig kids. My students who don't show up and don't do work are the ones who can't tell me how to split a $22 check for 4 people. My pre-algebra students don't care about school and they have no accountability. They're going to get a D or C and go to algebra next year, even though they don't know basic math.

I'm a teacher and the lack of effort I see from my gen Ed classes is the worst I have ever seen. I have several students that only do half the work and they still have a C. They literally just sit there and tell they aren't doing the work today. If I was them I wouldn't do it as well.

Anonymous wrote:Not to push the blame onto parents and students, but many of these policies are a result of the urbanization of Fairfax County which brings families who are more likely to struggle academically. If FCPS was more harsh by giving 0s and actually failing students, we would have problems with too many students staying behind and likely dropping out eventually.

It is a very difficult balance to help non-academic students move through the school system while teaching them a useful foundation but without destroying their sense of learning.

This is a new era, and the days of 30 years ago where students came mostly from well-educated, white, federal government workers and everyone's finances were booming. The divide has grown immensely.

I think these policies come from standards being set that require certain percentages of kids graduating from high school or passing standardized exams. A lower graduation rate is seen as failure so we have put in policies to get the graduation rate up. It is less expensive to set the minimum grade as a 50% then it is to offer remedial classes and accept that it is going to take time to bring some kids up to the necessary grade level. Or to offer more vo-tech programs that are better suited for a lot of kids who are not interested in college.

MS are starting to offer all classes as honors classes. Why? Because it looks better for the school to say that 90% of the population takes honors classes in MS. Never mind that there are more kids who need the regular class and not the honors class and that many of the honors classes are going to be watered down to the regular class standards because that is where most of the kids in that class are at.

Kids in FCPS are all over the place with their abilities when they start school here. A large percentage do not speak English as a first language but the ELL programs don't really meet their needs. And then we move them to the next grade even when they have not learned the material for a given year.

We don't hold kids back who are not at grade level because that is bad for their self confidence while ignoring the fact that a kid who has not learned Grade X material is not going to be ready for the next grade level material.

We are afraid of admitting that there are kids who are failing or struggling because it makes the stats look bad. We are afraid to admit it because we know it will cost money to run the classes that we need in order to fix the issue. Why not have 7 week long summer school, complete with bus pick up, for kids who are struggling. Half the day academics and half the day camp like stuff. It would provide child care for parents who are working, save them some money, and can help the kids maintain and develop new skills. We know why, it would be expensive. So lets just move the kids who are struggling to the next grade and then set the floor at a 50% for high school so that failing themis that much harder.

Policies like these are meant to paper over the larger problem. They fail the kids and society as a whole by graduating young people who are not prepared for adult life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Exactly. Those who fail to see these are detached from reality of schools in this current state of affairs. They are too idealistic, or maybe they've only ever stepped foot inside Oakton and Langley. The majority of students need lifestyle learning like communication, family sciences, and personal finance along with trade skills.

Great the old, there is no reason to educate the lower classes approach.

NP - No, but as an actual person who is in the trenches every day a kid who isn't coming to school and is failing to turn in numerous assignments is going to get zero life benefit from sitting in detention memorizing trig identities. All it is going to teach that kid (wealthy or poor, 1st generation immigrant or long time Fairfax elite) is that school is stupid. "When am I ever going to use this?" shouldn't be a question because we should be teaching relevant material to these kids--and sorry, law of cosines isn't relevant to the majority of kids.

I think a 50 makes sense. Why are elementary grades only 1-4 (why did they get rid of the five) and yet grades in high should range from 0-100? It never made sense. 50-100 is a reasonable range and it’s even. 50 is F. 60 is D. 70 is D. 80 is B. 90 is A. Except I think actually FCPS starts their D to A at the 4 so there is actually a 14 point spread from F to D.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Exactly. Those who fail to see these are detached from reality of schools in this current state of affairs. They are too idealistic, or maybe they've only ever stepped foot inside Oakton and Langley. The majority of students need lifestyle learning like communication, family sciences, and personal finance along with trade skills.

Great the old, there is no reason to educate the lower classes approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Up to a point I think we need to deprioritize engagement and prioritize general knowledge (no, it doesn't have to be dead white guys - just pick a cultural core that represents our diversity and roll with it). But that point ends sometime around late elementary or early middle school. After that, sure, diverge and let kids do different things. And emphasize that kids who go into skilled trades do as well, sometimes better, in life than many kids who go to college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Exactly. Those who fail to see these are detached from reality of schools in this current state of affairs. They are too idealistic, or maybe they've only ever stepped foot inside Oakton and Langley. The majority of students need lifestyle learning like communication, family sciences, and personal finance along with trade skills.

They're teaching kids that almost zero effort earns a free pass. Good luck with that mentality post-high school. If you want to set up trade schools or curriculums, that's a different matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Exactly. Those who fail to see these are detached from reality of schools in this current state of affairs. They are too idealistic, or maybe they've only ever stepped foot inside Oakton and Langley. The majority of students need lifestyle learning like communication, family sciences, and personal finance along with trade skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

These kids aren't stupid. The idea that getting a 50% on a chemistry exam when they actually earned a 30% is somehow going to create adults who can't figure out how to be productive members of society is rather short sighted.

High school isn't "real life". It's a bubble we've artificially created where students learn random things that have no purpose in most of their futures. If you want kids to care and show up and participate fully, then we need to allow them to study things they are interested in instead of forcing every student to take algebra 2, biology, and literature at age 16.

Not to push the blame onto parents and students, but many of these policies are a result of the urbanization of Fairfax County which brings families who are more likely to struggle academically. If FCPS was more harsh by giving 0s and actually failing students, we would have problems with too many students staying behind and likely dropping out eventually.

It is a very difficult balance to help non-academic students move through the school system while teaching them a useful foundation but without destroying their sense of learning.

This is a new era, and the days of 30 years ago where students came mostly from well-educated, white, federal government workers and everyone's finances were booming. The divide has grown immensely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Because when they "graduate", that 50 percent policy instantly converts to 0 percent policy with real life consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

If I can pick the assignments I don't want to do and know that they will receive a 50%, then I know that if I do certain assignments and earn a higher grade, it is easier for me to get to a 70%, a C- and passing grade. I can choose what I want to do and not do. I don't have to do the assignments I really don't want to do and I can still pass the class.

If not turning in work means a 0 then I cannot pick and choose what I want to do because even a perfect score on half of the work is a 50% and an F.

I taught at the College level. Every semester I had students ask me what they needed to do to earn a C. My class was required for their major or met a Gen Ed requirement but they didn't really want to take it. I always knew those students were going to fail because they were going to try and cherry pick what work they needed to do and that was going to lead to trouble. If I had to give those students 50% on assignments and tests that they did not take, they might have been able to get that C because the amount of work that they needed to do to get the C was significantly lessened.

It is a stupid policy.

But we aren’t discussing college, are we?

No, we are discussing a mindset towards education and life. The same mindset that leads to a kid in college, who is supposed to be motivated to receive an education, is driving kids in high school. Starting every kid at a 50% floor means that kids who are more interested in goofing off and slacking and trying to skate buy a pass. What the heck does that teach them and how is that going to track into their adult life? Are their jobs going to let them continue to pick and choose what they do and still keep their jobs? Are they going to be able to pick and choose what they do if they go to College?

The kids who are getting C's because of this type of a policy are the kids who everyone is pointing to in high school as needing ESSER funds because they did so badly last year. Guess what? These kids were struggling before but that was masked by this policy and the fact that Teachers could force them to turn in something in class so that they were a C student. Not because they were actually a C student but because of policies put in place that inflated their performance.

Why? Because we can't have kids not graduating because it looks bad. We can't have kids in remedial classes because they were failing because that looks bad. Instead we have MS moving to everyone is in Honors! And No one can score less then a 50%. All that tells me is I can't trust the statistics that FCPS puts out because I know Honors has been watered down so more kids can be in it and a lot of those C's are not really earned but given because of a false floor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 50 is an F

Yup. But the grade is recoverable. Why put a struggling student into situation from which he cannot recover? Why would they even try if they know there is no hope of passing the class? I think the policy is a good one.

Their grade would be recoverable if they were making an attempt to do the work. If a kid isn't turning in work, that is on them and their parent.

If there is a reason that the kid isn't turning in their work, physical or mental illness, some type of LD or learning issues then that should be addressed in a 504 plan or an IEP. Otherwise, we are giving kids a false floor and a false sense of confidence and a bogus grade.