HoodaThunk?

Comment from GBW
Time March 13, 2009 at 20:46

I can go along with the grade scale change as long as we admit that we are lowering our standards.

Here’s my concern. Let’s use your example, starting with the senioritis. Do we really want to teach kids it is okay to slack off just before achieving your goal? If student knows that slipping to a 71 will kill his chances of getting into college, I suspect there is a better chance he will work hard enough to make that sure that does not happen.

But in your general example, two kids with scores of 81% have different GPA’s. That may be unfair (isn’t life?) but let’s take the next step. They both go to college. The MD student ends up at a large, upper/mid-level school and struggles because he barely earned his “B”. The Loudoun student goes to a small, mid-level school and thrives because he worked much harder in the past to get his “C”. Which one would you rather be when it comes time to get your first job?

There is a college out there for everyone. Isn’t it better to prepare kids to excel by challenging them early? Unless, of course, this is really about parent’s prestige and saving money on car insurance. Not that you implied that, but the overall effort has that feel.

But if this is about getting Loudoun students better grades for the work they do why not move to a 12 point scale and give A’s for an 88? Why not give them a real advantage, I’m sure our school curriculum is more difficult anyway so they deserve a break. Why is that much different from the current change?

Comment from Ric James
Time March 13, 2009 at 22:31

Why not move to a 4-point scale and make anything under 84% a failing grade? I mean, if the point is to challenge them, why not make it a real one?

We don’t do that because, as you point out yourself, it’s unfair. And yes, I know all about how unfair “life” is but that’s no excuse to make things unfair. I’m glad you point out that I’ve not implied that it’s about a parent’s prestige, and you’ve made no reverse implication. However, what’s the point of purposely making our grading system harder than those of surrounding school districts? It could be inferred, too, that it’s all about the prestige of the school system and not about the education.

We can agree that there are things in life that aren’t fair but I don’t condone using that fact as cover for creating an unfair situation. Loudoun’s kids deserve as level a playing field as we can make it and this is the surest method. A given score gets the same grade letter and GPA regardless of the school it’s been earned at.

The alternative, of course, is to have everyone else bring their scale in line with ours. Since more schools used the 10-point system, however, it’s the least impact to the schools to adjust ours. I appreciate the concerns folks like you bring up but I can’t agree that we needed to keep it harder here than anywhere else just because that’s the way it’s always been done.

Comment from GBW
Time March 14, 2009 at 08:30

But it is the 10 point scale that is the way it has always been done. Loudoun (and Fairfax) are now just joining the crowd.

As for keeping the grade scale harder, the general argument always seems to be that the LCPS curriculum is better and more challenging. So the same logic that says the making the grade scale tougher than other districts is “unfair” can also be used to say that making the curriculum harder is “unfair.” And just wait until some in Loudoun join the groups across the country that say an “F” is not allowed.

What I would like to know is if Loudoun (and Fairfax) students do better, on average, over their post high school life. I assume there is no way to find data for such an assessment, but I believe the 7 point grade scale may be better for building the work ethic that supports long term success.

I remember freshman year of college and having friends who were high school valedictorians who struggled with the classwork. I barely made the top ten percent of my large graduating class but found the initial year to be largely refresher. It was the first time my friends were really challenged and they did not do so well.

I spent 20 years in the Navy and watched young sailors come into the Navy out of high school who had never been challenged and they often initially failed. But once they understood that they needed to apply themselves and work for a goal it was amazing to watch their accomplishment. The number of young kids coming out of high school who have never had to apply themselves is disappointing if not frightening.

Changing the grading scale may be the right thing to do, but I don’t know how we can do it without acknowledging that we are lowering our standards. Maybe they were too high. If I thought the standards were unreasonable I would agree with the change, but the main argument I keep seeing is that they were unfair. Unfair does not equal unreasonable.

In the end I don’t think we are helping our kids, just pushing their introduction to the harsh realities of the world a little further down the road.

Comment from Lovettsville Lady
Time March 17, 2009 at 03:08

What currently happens is our kids go to colleges where they often have the highest SAT scores and the lowest GPA’s. They have NO problems at those schools because they shouldn’t be in those schools. They should be in colleges where they are challenged but their lower GPA’s don’t permit that. The grading scale change should fix that and our students will be able to attend more appropriate schools that will challenge them.

Another advantage is for the parents, many academic scholarships are based on GPA, where our kids don’t stand a chance against students who came from schools using the 10 point scale. Now our students will be competitive for Honors programs and more scholarships. That will save our parents plenty of money.