My district is trying something new and daring in order to either lower the graduation requirements and help more children graduate, or raise them. It's hard to tell which. The most controversial part of the plan is to lower the GPA required for graduation from a C average to a D average – a 2.0 to a 1.0. D for Dismal, some say. Others argue that if a D is passing, it should be good enough to earn a diploma. But like all things in education, it's more complicated than that. The district is also moving from a point system that doesn't average failing grades into a student's GPA to one that does. Sound messy? It is.
The current system awards an "E" for a failing grade. It is as if the child never took the course, so it doesn't impact her GPA. Because of this, students who need a certain GPA - to be eligible for sports, for example – prefer an E to a D. This means that students can fail five classes and earn a C in one, and still be eligible to play a sport. They can play a sport for four years, but can't graduate, because the current system requires a C average in a set of core classes to graduate.
This is changing. Soon, E's will be factored in to a student's GPA, and that GPA needs to be a 1.0 to graduate. As well, they are awarding extra points to honors classes, so some students will graduate with higher than a 4.0.
People I've talked to are on both sides of the debate. Some say it's ridiculous to allow a child to graduate with a 1.0. Others say that while it won't get them into a quality university, it is passing and should be recognized as meeting standards. They say that many kids don't hit their stride until after high school anyway, and with a diploma – even one that represents a D average – they can go to a junior college and pursue academic excellence as an adult.
When New Jersey recently toughened graduation standards in an effort to prepare each child for college, The New Jersey Urban Youth Research Initiative decided to research what everyone thought of it. Guess what? They were FOR tougher standards, but concerned schools wouldn't be able to help kids meet them, either because of ineffective teaching, problems outside of school like poverty and gangs, and the lack of technical resources – like science labs - in the schools. I wonder if my district is trying to avoid these hurdles by keeping the graduation requirements fairly low. I know some teachers who give D's if a kid shows up every day, but that's another topic and one I can get quite fired up about.
I certainly earned my share of D's in school. I was on academic probation in junior high, then expelled, then took honors classes in high school while managing to bomb about one class a semester. I could be considered one of those who figured it out later, with the angst and helplessness of adolescence behind me. So honestly, I don't know whether I'm for the new system or the old in my district. Neither of them seems satisfying. I'm uncomfortable with lowering the requirements for graduation, but I love that there will no longer be an incentive to earn a failing grade over a D. In fact, the system of not averaging a failing grade into a GPA is so asinine I can barely think about it. As well, giving honors classes more weight will eliminate the "why would I want a C in that class if I can earn a B in this one?" argument.
What do you think?
Kristin, I can’t weigh in with an opinion yet, but I will say this: yours is the first report of this story that actually made sense. Even the public radio stations tried and failed to report on the cmplexities of this policy shift! Thank you.
Many people agree with you, Brian. While some are depressed about the lowering of standards, I’ve spoken to many people who argue that if a child passes the requirements for graduation, he has earned a diploma. A D is passing.
And you’re right. There are more and more requirements to graduate. My district is all-systems-go for college prep, and I don’t know too many adults OR students who think that’s the only route to a happy, productive adult life.
Terry Bergeson was the first person I heard say that our students deserve a diploma that means something, while defending the WASL. And I thought, “So what’s mine, chopped liver?” Back in the day we got a diploma and a transcript that showed our GPA (failed classes were included) and our standing in the class; e.g. 3.52 GPA, 51st in a class of 535. What was wrong with that? If Johnny kept coming and graduated with a 1.25 GPA, 502nd out of 535 I think we all know what kind of student he was. But he showed perseverance, and that’s worth something too. He didn’t drop out.
Remember, our students that just entered high school not only have to meet the requirements of their own school, they have to pass state assessments in reading and writing, end of course exams in Algebra and Geometry, and take Algebra 2 or another approved class. How hard do we want to make it to earn a diploma??
J. Broekman, you’re right. Right now the testing data are broken down but the GPA’s are not as transparent.
And I don’t know that the tiered certificates need to be of a better / lesser nature. A lot of people think that passing requirements is earning the diploma, regardless of the GPA. The GPA matters when you apply to post-high school education, but whether a child earns a D or an A average shouldn’t matter for a diploma, if they are both passing.
“Does anyone think this would lead to all the rich white and Asian kids earning college-bound diplomas and all the other kids earning the lesser certificates? That’s a possibility I would fear.”
If we’re still required to disaggregate the graduation data the way we have to disaggregate the testing results, I think community pressure (and just doing what’s right) will mitigate against this. Right now, we graduate kids with no community acknowledgment of the difference between scraping by and excelling, and therefore little community awareness of the racial profiles of each group.
I really wish we had more vocational training in the regular high schools. Yes, insuring an auto shop or a wood shop is expensive, but sending kids out of district because they admit to not wanting to go to college limits everyone.
Tracey, the image of the mentally unwell being plunked down on the curb will haunt me, because part of me feels like that is exactly what we’re doing. Students are entitled to an education until they are 21. In my school, there are a few 6th year seniors every year who take advantage of that. Some get it together and graduate, some don’t. I think part of this new system is an effort to move them on and out, you’re right.
And Mark, I absolutely agree with a tiered diploma system. I don’t know that it needs to be a different ceremony, though. I would love to see a Vocational Diploma added to that, for students who demonstrate excellence (what am I saying??? As if a 1.0 average demonstrates excellence…) for students who demonstrate completion of a set of vocational requirements.
At awards ceremonies, students are awarded in groups. At my husband’s Education Program Graduation at the University of Washington, all those receiving their Masters went first, then the Doctorate recipients went. Both are valid, but they are different. Perhaps we could move towards personalizing graduation requirements to the student, and offer a few different diplomas.
Does anyone think this would lead to all the rich white and Asian kids earning college-bound diplomas and all the other kids earning the lesser certificates? That’s a possibility I would fear.
To me, this is yet more support for the idea that the high school diploma as a singular concept is meaningless.
Schools are now conveyor belts moving cargo from one grade to the next and dumping it into a box labeled “the real world” at the end…regardless of whether it’s ready to go or not.
Kristin, I do think that the change to include E grades into your GPA is a good move. Our high school has always required just a D average to graduate, which is unfortunate, but Fs were always figured into GPAs and athletic eligibility. There’s always that (often true) argument that many kids stay in school so they can do sports…what’s the point if they can attend, get all Es, and still be eligible?
Back to diplomas, I think it ought to go like this: 2.50-4.00 GPAs earn a diploma, 1.00 to 2.49 GPAs earn a certificate of completion. (…or some similar system, those GPA numbers are arbitrary and ultimately not my point). And there ought to be two separate ceremonies.
However, that might inspire grade inflation, whatever. As it is now, I’ve seen kids enter their senior year in sophomore standing creditwise and end up walking at graduation with their “peers.” I’ve seen kids who’ve had core graduation requirements “waived” by administrators, or administered in “independent study” without actually having the student have any contact with a teacher–and without any academic department overseeing what “curriculum” is being administered. Luckily, that is starting to change in my building.
I think it is time to move to a tiered system of diplomas, where students can also have the option of “graduating” with a kind diploma after 10th grade if they want to choose to head into the workforce but have demonstrated the competencies necessary. We need to remember, not all kids are university-bound.
I had no idea failing grades weren’t averaged into the GPA. Who’s idea was that? The change for graduation requirements from a C average to a D seems more to me like the schools are saying, “Good riddance! We gave you four years. You didn’t do very well. Now it’s time for you to go.” It reminds me of the scene in Michael Moore’s movie, Sicko where we saw taxis dropping off confused, physically and mentally unwell recently discharged hospital patients, still in hospital gowns, on the street. Without the resources to care for them, these patients got dumped out into the world. In a way, we are doing the same to our youth. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here!”