If kids are graded as is, a kid who fails miserably on a test or assignment early, may have no hope of recovering.
A 50% or less will kill the average for the rest of the year, regardless of how well the kid does in the future.
The problem is, I haven't seen any info regarding any kid who sucked early and got way better later.
Also, I can't seem to find any statistics to show how many or what percentage of the school or school district kids falls within the suck guidelines.
Which leads me to believe more kids are in the suck guidelines than not, otherwise, why come up with this program ?
It is a hard deal, no doubt but failure is a part of learning. Advancing a mediocre to poor student as though they are competent is a disservice to all.
The problem is that educators are more concerned with socialization, keeping age groups together, and stigmatization than in education.
If someone is struggling as much as this opinion piece suggests, they do not belong in that class. If someone fails to do that work they need to repeat that class.
Will this failing student accept that the mechanic worked really, really hard on his car but failed to fix it or that he has four times the hours hence a greater fee than a more competent mechanic? I do not think so. Go to any major sporting events and listen to how ruthless the fans are concerning player ability yet we should turn a blind eye in academic performance? I do not think so.
Furthermore, the scenario this writer advances is very unlikely. Students who fail to turn in work or start out in the “D” range seldom advance to the “A” range in only a semester.